High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-12-20Disposed with directions; petition allowed for ...

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 41888 of 2023: M/S Pulikkottil Devices Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v The District Police Chief, Kottayam and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 41888 OF 2023

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2023-12-20
Court Decision / Holding: There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner to carry out loading and unloading work of electronic and electrical items alone by the petitioner’s workers. If there is any obstruction from the 3rd respondent or its associates, adequate protection shall be afforded. It is made clear that the protection is only with respect to the loading and unloading work of electronic and electrical items, which are delicate and sophisticated in nature. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Disposed with directions; petition allowed for police protection for loading/unloading by petitioner's own workers for delicate items only.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S Pulikkottil Devices Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
P.C. Francis

Respondents

The District Police Chief-Kottayam
The Station House Officer-Chingavanam Police Station, Chingavanam, Kottayam
Vijayan, Convenor ITUC, Mavilangu, Chingavanam
Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Liji J. Vadakedom
• Rexy Elizabeth Thomas
• Tome Jacob
• Athul V. Vadakkedom

Counsels for Respondents

• Krishna Moorthy (ERNAKULAM)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, a company engaged in selling and distributing electronic and electrical home appliances, sought police protection to allow their own skilled workers to load and unload goods at the Chingavanam branch, after obstruction by the 3rd respondent’s group who claimed a monopoly over such work. Ext. P2 wage slips show the petitioners’ workers are engaged in handling sensitive items; the petition relied on Kerala Headload Workers Act, particularly Section 2(m), which defines a headload worker and, via an explanation, includes “delicate or sophisticated” articles requiring trained personnel. The petition cites Krishna Kumar v. D.S.P., Alappuzha, and Balakrishnan A. v. Circle Inspector of Police, to contend that protection can be granted to workers handling delicate goods. The 4th respondent contends that the petitioners’ workers are mainly helpers without requisite expertise, hence protection would be inappropriate. After considering the Act and the cited judgments, the Court held that the petitioners’ workers, who have long worked with the company and handle delicate electronic items, are entitled to police protection for loading/unloading. It directed respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection for this limited task, and clarified the protection applies only to loading/unloading of delicate items. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Headload Workers Act, Section 2(m) (definition of headload worker; Explanation to define delicate/sophisticated articles)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued for police protection to enable their own skilled workers to load and unload electronic and electrical items, which are delicate and require trained handling, at the Chingavanam branch. They relied on Kerala Headload Workers Act (Section 2(m)) and on Krishna Kumar and Balakrishnan to interpret the term ‘delicate/sophisticated’ items as justifying protection for trained labour. Respondents asserted that the petitioners’ workers were not sufficiently trained; the 4th respondent argued that protective relief should not be granted where workers lack specialized expertise. The court evaluated the statutory text and precedents to determine whether protection could be granted for handling delicate goods by the petitioners’ workers.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the petitioners’ workforce comprises headload workers with no special training for delicate items; they contended that protection would be inappropriate or unnecessary, and that the proper course was to rely on existing policing arrangements and statutory definitions. The Ministry/Board representative (4th respondent) emphasized the need to adhere to the Act’s definitions and to prevent misuse of protections.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Krishna Kumar and others v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha and others	2021 (5) KHC 717	Positive	Court relied on this decision to interpret Section 2(m) and to permit police protection for handling delicate/sophisticated articles.
Balakrishnan A. v. Circle Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Alappuzha and others	2020 (6) KHC 701	Positive	Court cited this judgment to support protective relief for handling delicate items and the interpretation of the headload worker concept.
W.P.(C) 14656/2020	W.P.(C) 14656/2020	Positive	Earlier decision of this Court supporting police protection for overhead handling of delicate items as per the Act.

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 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 41888 of 2023: M/S Pulikkottil Devices Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v The District Police Chief, Kottayam and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1 WPC 41888/23 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`** ## **`WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 41888 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1M/S.PULIKKOTTILDEVICESDISTRIBUTORSPVT.LTD., REPRESENTEDBYITSMANAGINGDIRECTOR 18/1145,BKTCOMPLEX,JAILROAD,PUTHIYARA,CALICUT, – PIN673004. 2P.C.FRANCIS AGED69YEARS S/O.PULIKKOTTILCHAKKAPPAN,MANAGINGDIRECTOR,M/S. PULIKKOTTILDEVICESDISTRIBUTORSPVT.LTD,RESIDINGAT PULIKKOTTILHOUSE,NEYKUTTYTHAZHAM,NEARCHUNASARTS – CLUB,KUTHIRAVATTOMP.O.,CALICUT,PIN673016. ``` ``` BYADVS. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM REXYELIZABETHTHOMAS TOME.JACOB ATHULV.VADAKKEDOM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THEDISTRICTPOLICECHIEF-KOTTAYAM OFFICEOFTHEDISTRICTPOLICECHIEF,KOTTAYAM, – PIN686003. 2THESTATIONHOUSEOFFICER-CHINGAVANAM CHINGAVANAMPOLICESTATION,CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM, – PIN686531. 3VIJAYAN CONVENORAITUC,MAVILANGU,CHINGAVANAMRESIDINGAT KOLLAKKADAVILHOUSE,PALLOMP.O.,KOTTAYAM, ``` 2 WPC 41888/23 ``` – PIN686007. ``` ``` 4KERALAHEADLOADWORKERSWELFAREFUNDBOARDREPRESENTED BYITSSECRETARY ``` ``` OFFICEOFTHEKERALAHEADLOADWORKERSOFFICE,SRMROAD, – ERNAKULAM,PIN682018. ``` ``` BYADVS.KRISHNAMOORTHY(ERNAKULAM) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` GPSREEJITHV.S ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 20.12.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` 3 WPC 41888/23 ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 20[th] day of December, 2023) The petitioner is a company, engaged in the sale and distribution of electronic and electrical home appliances. The petitioner started a branch at Chingavanam, near Kottayam. He has his own skilled workers, who are trained to handle electronic and electrical home appliances, which are very delicate. These trained workers are attached to the 1[st] petitioner’s company. Ext.P2 series are the wage slips of the petitioner’s workers. 2. When the Electrical and electronic home appliances are brought to the Chingavanam branch on 20.11.2023 and while they were unloaded, some persons under the leadership of the 3[rd] respondent came to the building and obstructed the unloading of the electrical home appliances stating that they alone are entitled to work in that area and that the 2[nd] petitioner cannot entrust the work with his own workers. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition before the 4 WPC 41888/23 2[nd] respondent seeking police protection on 20.11.2023. But no action has been taken by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to see that protection is given to the petitioner. 3. The learned standing counsel for 4[th] respondent submits that, Ext.P2 series show that petitioner’s load workers are helpers as well as headload workers working in shops. Therefore, they don’t have any trained expertise to deal with sophisticated and delicate electronic and electrical items. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in _**Krishna Kumar and others v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha and others** reported in_ _**2021 (5) KHC 717**_ as well as _**Balakrishnan A. v. Circle Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Alappuzha and others** reported in_ _**2020 (6) KHC 701**_ . He relies on the paragraph 4 of the Krishna Kumar ( _Supra_ ) and submits that Section 2(m) of the Act defines a “Headload 5 WPC 41888/23 worker” to mean one who is engaged for loading and unloading or carrying on head or person or in a trolley, any article or articles, **excluding “delicate and sophisticated ” articles .** An explanation was added to the Section to define “delicate” or “sophisticated article” to mean those which require to be handled by trained or skilled persons. 5. This court after considering the provisions of the Act as well as the facts of the case, came to a conclusion that the petitioners in that cases are entitled for police protection, if they are dealing with electronic equipment and appliances that are delicate and sophisticated as per the stipulation and explanation to Section 2(m) of the Act. 6. The petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner’s 3 workers had been working with them for the last so many years and they are expertise in handling electrical and electronic items, which are very delicate. Therefore, he seeks police protection from respondents 1 and 2 to provide 6 WPC 41888/23 adequate and effective police protection to carry out loading and unloading works of electronic and electrical home appliances by engaging the petitioner’s own workers at its Chingavanam Branch covered by Ext. P1 licence. 7. Though notice was issued to the 3rd respondent by a special messenger and has been accepted by the same, there is no appearance for the 3[rd] respondent. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration of the judgment of this Court in _**Krishna Kumar (supra)** as well as_ _**Balakrishnan** (supra)_ and that the petitioners are dealing with electrical and electronic items, which are delicate and sophisticated in nature, there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner to carry out loading and unloading work of electronic and electrical items alone by the petitioner’s workers. If there is any obstruction from 3[rd] respondent or its associates, adequate protection shall be afforded. It is made 7 ## WPC 41888/23 clear that the protection is only with respect to the loading and unloading work of electronic and electrical items, which are delicate and sophisticated in nature. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. **sd/-** **BASANT BALAJI** JUDGE rpr 8 WPC 41888/23 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41888/2023`** ``` PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS ``` |`Exhibit `|`P1`|`THE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO. 130189012305525`| |---|---|---| |||`DATED 6.12.2023 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND`| |||`PETITIONER FROM THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY.`| |`Exhibit `|`P2`|`THE COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP OF SANGEETH V.`| |||`SUDHAN.`| |`Exhibit `|`P2(a)`|`THE COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP OF SANTHOSH K.S.`| |`Exhibit `|`P2(b)`|`THE COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP OF BIJU THOMAS.`| |`Exhibit `|`P3`|`A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.11.2023`| |||`SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE`| |||`2ND RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit `|`P3(a)`|`A COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20.11.2023 ISSUED`| |||`FROM THE CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION SHOWING`| |||`THE SUBMISSION OF EXHIBIT P3 COMPLAINT.`| |`Exhibit `|`P4`|`A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2020 IN`| |||`W.P.(C) 14656/2020 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE`| |||`COURT.`| Corrected