High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-02-15Petition disposed of; the petitioner succeeds i...

Sudheer v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 3741/19-P

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
N. Anil Kumar
Judgment Date: 2019-02-15
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is disposed of with a finding that the petitioner's premises are not in a scheme-covered area, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to engage workers of his choice. The court records that there is contention about obstruction, but notes the practice has existed and that police protection is available if any threat to law and order emerges. The court directs the respondents to intervene to abate any such threat, ensuring life and property protection for the petitioner and his workers.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of; the petitioner succeeds in the sense that his non-scheme area rights are recognized; police protection directions to be ensured if law and order threats arise.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sudheer, aged 36 years S/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER, KADAYIL VEEDU, PULIMOODU, THOLICODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 541

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram 695001
The District Police Chief, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram 695001
The Circle Inspector of Police, Vithura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram 695551
The Station House Officer, Vithura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram 695551
Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, Thiruvananthapuram District Committee Office, Kausthubham Complex, Chenthitta, Thiruvananthapuram 695036
Abdul Vaheed, aged 50 years, S/O. TAMBIKUNJU, CONVENOR, INTUC UNION OFFICE, PULIMOODU, VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 551
Shahabudeen, aged 52 years, CONVENOR, CITU, CITU UNION OFFICE, PULLIMOODU, VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 551

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT. N.P. ASHA

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Ashwin P. John
• Sri. Thomas Abraham, SC, KHWWB

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges interference by activists allied to rival unions at the petitioner's establishment, Modern Enterprises, run as a supplier of building and hardware materials in Thiruvananthapuram. Sudheer, the petitioner, alleges that respondents 6 and 7 and their members obstruct the loading and unloading operations, threatening life and property, and seeks mandamus relief and police protection to ensure uninterrupted business and to restrain the rival unions from entering the premises. The 5th respondent Board contends the place is not a scheme-covered area. The private respondents deny wrongdoing, claiming that workers and their unions have long carried out loading/unloading duties at the establishment and that any action taken would be lawful if warranted. The court directed scrutiny of whether the location is within a scheme-covered area and ultimately held that it is not, allowing the petitioner to engage workers of his choice in a non-scheme area. Relying on two Full Bench judgments—Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police (1998 (2) KLT 732) and Karunakara Kurup v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 215)—the court emphasized non-scheme area rights and the primacy of police intervention to prevent threats to law and order. The matter is disposed of with directions for police to act if threats arise, upholding the petitioner’s rights while maintaining public order.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner, Sudheer, contends that respondents 6 and 7 and their affiliates have forcibly obstructed loading/unloading at Modern Enterprises, disrupting business and endangering workers. He asserts the place is not a scheme-covered area, so he must be free to hire workers of his choice. Relying on Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police (1998) (2) KLT 732) and Karunakara Kurup v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 215), he seeks a writ of mandamus for police protection and to restrain interference, arguing life and property protection for workers is essential and police intervention is required if threats arise.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents deny any forcible obstruction, arguing that workers and unions have long performed loading/unloading tasks at the establishment and that continuing such arrangements is permissible if lawful. They contend the petitioner’s allegations are unfounded and request recognition of the long-standing practice, while ensuring compliance with law and order. They maintain there is no imminent threat warranting extraordinary relief.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police	1998 (2) KLT 732	Positive	Cited as the controlling principle that non-scheme areas permit private employers to engage workers of their choice; full bench reasoning applied.
Karunakara Kurup v. State of Kerala	2004 (1) KLT 215	Positive	Cited alongside Raghavan to reinforce the non-scheme area principle relied upon by the court.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sudheer v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 3741 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SUDHEER, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER, KADAYIL VEEDU, PULIMOODU, THOLICODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 541.** **BY ADV. SMT.N.P.ASHA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME**| ||**DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,**| ||**POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**| |**3**|**THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**VITHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 551.**| |**4**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**VITHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 551.**| |**5**|**KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE,**| ||**KAUSTHUBHAM COMPLEX, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**695 036.**| |**6**|**ABDUL VAHEED,**| ||**AGED 50 YEARS**| ||**S/O. TAMBIKUNJU, CONVENOR, INTUC UNION OFFICE,**| ||**PULIMOODU, VITHURA, THIRUVNAANTHAPURAM 695 551.**| W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 2 **7 SHAHABUDEEN, AGED 52 YEARS CONVENOR, CITU, CITU UNION OFFICE, PULLIMOODU, VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 551.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, KHWWB** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.** The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents 2 to 4 to ensure law and order situation and to provide adequate police protection. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents 2 to 4 to restrain respondents 6 and 7 and their members from entering into petitioner's business place and cause any damages and to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his workers. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Aswin P. John, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 4 for the 5[th] respondent Board. 3. The petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment run under the name and style “Modern Enterprises”, as covered by Ext.P1 Registration Certificate. The business involves supply of building materials, roofing materials,plumbing materials, hardwares, tiles, etc. It is stated that the petitioner has engaged eight workers in his godown to do the loading and unloading activities as well. The grievance is with regard to the interference made by the respondents 6 and 7, causing forceful obstruction in connection with the loading and unloading activities in the estaglishment, which was brought to the notice of the police by filing a petition. It did not yield any positive result and hence the writ petition. 4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 13.02.2019, we required the learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent Board to ascertain whether the place in question is W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 5 a scheme covered area or not. The learned Standing Counsel submits, on the basis of the instructions, that the place in question is not a scheme covered area. 5. The learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the allegation levelled against the said respondents is not correct. At no point of time had they taken the law into their hands, nor will they cause any forceful obstructions to the loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment. It is stated that the workers and their Union were doing the loading and unloading operations in the petitioner's establishment as well, for quite long and that, but for the request to continue such arrangement, no action contrary to the provisions of law has been taken by them; submits the learned counsel. 6. We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader as well. W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 6 7. In so far as the merit of the case is involved, particularly with regard to the right of the petitioner, since the place in question is not a scheme covered area, it is open for the petitioner to engage workers of his choice. This is the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in **Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT** **732]** and **Karunakara Kurup v. State of Kerala [2004 (1) KLT 215]** . 8. In the said circumstance, we find that the petitioner has succeeded in substantiating the case before this Court. The submission made by the learned counsel for the 6[th] and 7[th] respondents, that no forceful obstruction is being caused by them, is recorded. If at all there is any threat to the law and order situation at the instance of the 6[th] and 7[th] respondents or anybody under them and once the same is brought to the notice of the police, it shall be for the respondents 2 to 4 to intervene and to take necessary remedial measures, abating W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 7 the threat to the rule of law. The matter stands disposed of as above. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** ## **Sd/-** **N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE** okb //True copy// P.A. to Judge W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FORM GST REG-06 DATED 17-07-2018** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24-01-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24-1-2019.**