T. D. Kuriyakose v. District Superintendent of Police, Thrissur (Rural) and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/26TH MAGHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 3225 of 2013 (C)** **-------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **T.D KURIYAKOSE, THERADAN HOUSE, PUNNAMPARAMBU, THEKKUMKARA P.O., PIN-680 608, THRISSUR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR (RURAL), PIN-680 003.** **2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKANCHERRY, PIN-680 582.** **3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKANCHERRY, PIN-680 582.** **4. THE AITUC UNIT, OTTUPARA, WADAKANCHERRY (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 582.** **5. THE INTUC UNIT, OTTUPARA, WADAKANCHERRY (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 582.** **R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C)NO.3225/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 7/3/2011 IN WP(C)NO.12992/2009** - **P2 COPY OF THE FIR DATED 23/08/2012** - **P3 COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 22/08/2012** - **P4 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT WP(C)NO.23688/1999 REPORTED IN 1999(3) KLT 415** - **P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE AUTHORITIES** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **R4(A) COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE TIPPER EARTH MOVERS SOCIETY AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS** - **R4(B) COPY OF THE ADMISSION DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO RAJISH FROM TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, WADAKANCHERRY** - **R4(C) COPY OF THE ADMISSION DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO SHAJAN FROM TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, WADAKANCHERRY** - **R4(D) COPY OF THE ADMISSION DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO NOUSHAD FROM TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, WADAKANCHERRY** - **R4(E) COPY OF THE ADMISSION DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ME FROM TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, WADAKANCHERRY** - **R4(F) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4/9/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE WORKERS BELONGING TO ALL TRADE UNIONS BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR** - **R4(G) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4/9/2012 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **K. M. JOSEPH & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.** **----------------------------------------------** **W. P. (C). NO. 3225 OF 2013 C ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 15th February, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K.M. Joseph, J.** Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: _"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to render adequate police protection for the use of petitioner's tipper lorries bearing Reg. Nos.KL-8/AE-3434 and KL-48B-6547 as part of the business of his SSI unit in and around Thalappilly Taluk coming under the territorial jurisdiction of 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents._ _(ii) Declare that respondents 4 and 5 or any other trade union have no manner of right to object and obstruct the use of petitioner's tipper lorries._ _(iii) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on Ext.P5 complaint."_ _**WP(C).NO.3225/13 C**_ _**2**_ 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner runs an SSI cement hollow bricks & solid bricks manufacturing unit. It has all the licences and registration certificates. It has its own permanent workers. It has two tipper lorries for the business of the unit. Alleging denial of work, the respondents take law into their hands and obstruct the use of petitioner's vehicles. This Court laid down the law in . v. _**Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd Supdt. of Police**_ (1999 (3) KLT 415) for the use of mechanical devices in loading and unloading works. Respondents have no manner of right to obstruct. Police authorities keep aloof and away from discharging the statutory duties and this has resulted in manifest injustice and gross violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The unjustified demands of respondent unions has adversely affected the livelihood of the petitioner and his family. Since the SSI unit is running on bank loan, anything affecting the business will have the consequence of running the unit and the petitioner's family. _**WP(C).NO.3225/13 C**_ _**3**_ 3. Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 4 and 5 producing Exts.R4(a) agreement. Petitioner has filed Reply Affidavit. Therein, it is stated, inter alia, that the petitioner is not a party to Ext.R4(a) agreement and it is not binding him. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the party respondents would point out the plight of the head load workers for whose benefit the Act was enacted. He points out that if the argument of the petitioner is accepted and the tippers are allowed as requested, it will lead to denial of work to the head load workers. He would submit that there is a mechanism provided under Section 21 of the Act and this is a fit case to relegate the petitioner to approach the authority under Section 21 of the Act. 5. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner is entitled to use tippers for loading and unloading work as long as it can be done through tippers. 6. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what _**WP(C).NO.3225/13 C**_ _**4**_ all goods the petitioner intends to load and unload using tippers. His response was that the petitioner intends to use tippers for loading and unloading sand, metal, cement and bricks both hollow & solid and rubbles and all materials which can be loaded and unloaded through tippers. 7. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the party respondents that the petitioner must be driven to the authority under Section 21 of the Act. This Court has taken the view that it is open to the party to use mechanical device for loading and unloading work. It will only if the party uses manual labour for loading and unloading, the Act will apply. Here is a case where the petitioner wants to use tippers for loading and unloading. The party respondents are not claiming to be employees of the petitioner. They claim to be pool workers. As far as Ext.R4(a) agreement is concerned, it is met by the petitioner by contending that the petitioner is not a party to that agreement. As long as the petitioner is not shown to be a party to Ext.R4(a) _**WP(C).NO.3225/13 C**_ _**5**_ agreement, the terms of the same cannot be imposed on the petitioner. The party respondents have no case that the petitioner is a member of that society, either. So, the party respondents cannot lay store by Ext.R4(a) agreement. In the light of this position, it is clear that the obstruction caused by the party respondents to the petitioner using tippers in question is without foundation. No doubt, if the petitioner seeks to do any work manually, it can be done only in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to render adequate police protection to the petitioner for using the tipper lorries bearing Reg. Nos. KL-8/AE-3434 and KL-48B-6547 as part of the business of the petitioner in and around Thalappilly Taluk as against any obstruction from members of respondents 4 and 5 as and when required. We are premising our order on the basis that the tippers will be used only for loading and unloading of materials which are _**6**_ _**WP(C).NO.3225/13 C**_ capable of being loaded and unloaded mechanically. As far as goods which are to be loaded and unloaded by using manual means, necessarily the petitioner will be bound to act in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Sd/= **K. M. JOSEPH** Sd/= **K. RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE** **JUDGE** **kbk.** ## _**//True Copy//**_