Swashraya Karshaka Samithy Vaniamkulam v. Circle Inspector of Police, Ottapalam and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/4TH MAGHA 1933** **WPC.No. 33935 of 2011 (N) -------------------------** PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1. SWASHRAYA KARSHAKA SAMITHY VANIAMKULAM, MANISSERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.SASEENDRAN E. 2. E.SASEENDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, ELIYAKATTUTHODY, CHOROTTUR P.O. MANISSERRY VIA., PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679101. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679101. 3. HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), MANISSERRY UNIT, MANISSERRY P.O. VANIAMKULAM VIA., PINCODE-679521, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.SURESHBABU K. 4. BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), MANISSERRY UNIT, MANISSERRY P.O., VANIAMKULAM VIA. PINCODE-679521, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER, SRI.BALAKRISHNAN. ADDL. 5. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALAKKAD. ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DATED 19.12.11 IN W.P(C).33935/11. R3-R4 BY SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R5 BY SRI.KOSHY GEORGE R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER(SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **WPC.No. 33935 of 2011** ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INAUGURATION OF THE SWASRAYA KARSHAKA SAMITHY, VANIAMKULAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15/12/2011 FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING HELP. - EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN OP.13972/99 DATED 9/6/1999 OF SINGLE JUDGE. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1508 OF 1999 DATED 13/7/1999 OF DIVISION BENCH. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J** ## **& RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **W.P(C).No. 33935 of 2011** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 24[th] day of January, 2012 JUDGMENT** ## **Ramachandra Menon, J.** Petitioners herein, one Swashraya Karshaka Samithy and a member thereof, have approached this Court claiming police protection stating that the activities in the agricultural market, being run by the 'Samithy', enabling the farmers concerned to bring their agricultural produce to the market and to have the same sold for proper sale consideration, is being forcefully interrupted by respondents 3 and 4 Unions, demanding the loading and unloading work in the market. 2. The case projected in the Writ Petition is that the market was formed to procure maximum price for the agricultural produce and it is with this intent that the concerned land has been taken on lease in the name of the 'Samithy'. It is also stated, there is an agreement to the effect that, the agricultural produce brought into market by the farmers will be caused to be 2 _**WP(C).33935/11**_ loaded and unloaded by the farmers themselves and the sale price includes the loading/unloading charges as well. In spite of the agreement, the members of the Unions forcefully obstructed the activities demanding work, stating that it is a 'schemecovered area' and that nobody else can be employed or deployed by the petitioners, which made the petitioners to approach this Court seeking police protection. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that today the petitioners have also produced a document as Exhibit P7, which is an order passed by the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, wherein a similar dispute was dealt with, holding that the loading and unloading activities could be pursued by the farmers themselves. 4. Respondents 3 and 4 Unions are represented by Advocate Sri.Philip T.Varghese, who submits that the averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition are not at all correct and that the loading and unloading activities are never being done by the farmers themselves. It is also stated that the arrangement based on the alleged agreement executed by the petitioners is only a camouflage so as to deny work to the eligible hands, who are actually the beneficiaries to the the Kerala Headload Workers' Act and the Scheme. 3 _**WP(C).33935/11**_ 5. The additional fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Writ petition is devoid of any merit or bonafide and that the area is a 'scheme-covered area', where no loading and unloading operations can be pursued by the persons of choice of the petitioners. Reference is also made to Clause 6(1) as well as Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare & Registration of Employment Scheme, 1983, which declare the right of the persons concerned in respect of loading and unloading activities in a Scheme covered area. The additional fifth respondent also says in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that the averment of the petitioners that the farmers themselves are doing the loading and unloading work is not correct; simultaneously pointing out that, among the farmers, there are aged persons, ladies, invalid persons etc., who cannot do any loading/unloading work. It is also added that outsiders are being engaged to do the work by the petitioners. The additional fifth respondent further submit that the question raised very much comes within the purview of the term 'dispute' as defined under Section 2(h) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and as such, the remedy has to be worked out as provided under Section 21 of the Act before the Labour Department. 4 _**WP(C).33935/11**_ 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, there is an understanding between the petitioners and the prospective buyers that the goods will be loaded and unloaded for the sale price of the commodity itself, which actually includes the loading/unloading charges as well. However, going by the contents of paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition, we find that the petitioners' contention is that the farmers, after bringing their products to the 'Samithy' themselves unload and thereafter load them in the concerned vehicles after the sale, without any additional charge and thus ensure maximum value for their products. The submission now made across the Bar and the pleading raised by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition do not reconcile with each other. That apart, this Court finds that, once the property is sold to the prospective buyers, the farmers do not continue to be the owners of the property and such goods cannot be compelled to be loaded by the farmers or expected to be loaded by the farmers, who do not continue to be the owners of the property. We find considerable force in the aspect pointed out by the additional fifth respondent in paragraph 9 of their counter affidavit that the farmers include aged persons, ladies and also invalid persons, who cannot pursue any such loading/unloading activities. In the above circumstances, we find _**WP(C).33935/11**_ 5 it difficult to accept the proposition mooted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in _**Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police**_ (1998(2) KLT 732) with specific reference to paragraph 22. True, as per the above decision, the power of this Court so as to remedy the situation, where the law is taken into hands by the persons concerned, who forcefully obstructed the loading/unloading activities, has been clearly dealt with. But, the question in the instant case is whether the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court should be extended to persons like the petitioners, who seek to frustrate the provisions of the Act/Scheme despite the fact that the area is a 'scheme-covered area', that too on the basis of some oral understanding, so as to deny employment to the beneficiaries under the Act/Scheme and to have it done in some other manner. The factual position as to the nature of the area, coming within the notification issued by the Government as a 'scheme-covered area' is not under dispute. So also, but for the vague averments and allegations as to the oral understanding between the petitioners and the prospective buyers, nothing concrete is brought on record, so as to accept the same as a 6 _**WP(C).33935/11**_ reliable material for extending the relief sought for. Above all, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, submits that there is absolutely no threat to the law and order situation. In the above circumstances, we decline interference and the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this will not bar the way of the petitioners in approaching the competent authority under the relevant labour enactments so as to have redressal of their grievance, if any. **MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE** **RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** **vgs**