Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 756 (KER)

Southern Agencies v. Sub Inspector of Police

2018-09-25

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2018
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner is stated to be a proprietary concern owned by Smt.Susy John. According to her, the business of the petitioner is presently being done at Palarivattom, Ernakulam in a rented premises and that she intents to shift the business to Thripunithura into a building that has been exclusively constructed for this purpose by her. 2. Her allegations in the Writ Petition is that even though she has permanent workers, who are all covered by the proceedings under the Headloand Workers Act and issued with identity cards under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, they are being obstructed from carrying on their works at Thripunithura by the members of the respondent No.4 Union on the ground that these workers cannot work at Thripunithura on the strength of the identity cards issued while they were working at Palarivattorm. The petitioner says that the stand of the 4th respondent is completely illegal and she prays that the respondent No. 2, who is the concerned Circle Inspector of Police, be directed to afford her and her permanent workers protection from the members of the 4th respondent Union. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that since the identity cards have been issued by the Competent Authorities under the Headload Workers Rules, the petitioner would be at liberty to use their permanent workers even when the business is shifted to Thripunithura. He says that there is no legal impediment in using the registered permanent workers of an establishment in another place, provided the establishment itself is conducting the business at such place. 4. Sri. V.P. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that even though the petitioner says that the same establishment is being shifted from Palarivattom to Thripunithura, his clients have reasons to believe that what they are attempting is to start is a completely new establishment at Thripunithura. However, he concedes that he does not have any cogent evidence to substantiate this but he says that his clients have reliable information in this regard. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. However, he concedes that he does not have any cogent evidence to substantiate this but he says that his clients have reliable information in this regard. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Alex Varghese, submits that the allegations made by the respondent No.4 is completely untenable and that the business at Palarivattom is being carried on by M/s Southern Agencies, the petitioner herein, and that the proposed business at Thripunithura is also by the same establishment namely the petitioner herein. He says that going by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2012 (3) KLT 58 the declaration of law is inescapable that an establishment can use their own registered workers in a different place even if the registration has been done by the competent Authorities at another place. 6. On a consideration of the above submissions, since we notice that the petitioner is only relocating its business from Palarivattom to Thripunithura and since they have permanent workers with identity cards issued under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, they are certainly entitled to carry on the loading and unloading works at the new place at Thripunithura with such employees. Therefore, if any obstruction is caused by the members of the 4th respondent Union to such activities being carried on by the petitioner using their own registered workers, the respondent No.1 will be obligated to ensure that such obstructions are removed and that protection is afforded to the petitioner and to their registered workers as per law. 7. We clarify that the directions in this judgment will apply only as long as the petitioner uses their own registered workers armed with the identity cards issued under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules and that if the petitioner requires any further personnel, in addition to their own registered workers, then they will have to seek workers to be deployed from the pool established under the Headload Workers Act through the competent Authority. This Writ Petition is thus ordered.