Malabar Machine Metals vs The Circle Inspector of Police, The Sub Inspector of Police and The Secretary

R. Basant, J.—The Petitioners in these five petitions have come to this Court with the prayer that police protection may be afforded to them to get the work of loading and unloading in their establishments done by registered attached workers of their establishment. These petitions were filed as early as on 15.1.2010. Interim directions were issued to the police to maintain law and order. Those orders have remained in force all through.

The leaned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the establishments of the Petitioners are all situated in an area which is not covered by any scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. Though, according to the Petitioners, the Petitioners are entitled to get the work done by their permanent workmen even if they are not registered, in these petitions, the Petitioners are only requesting that they may be permitted to get their work done through registered workers of their choice. Requisite registration has been obtained under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules for such workmen and in these circumstances, the party Respondent Union has no justification to obstruct the work.

The third Respondent has entered appearance. The learned Counsel for the third Respondent does not dispute the fact that the area in question is an area not covered by any scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. The learned Counsel for the third Respondent further submits that the third Respondent has no intention to obstruct the loading and unloading work in the establishment of the Petitioners being carried out by the workmen who are duly registered under Rule 26A. However, the learned Counsel for the third Respondent submits that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the work was being done by the members of the third Respondent union. That assertion is denied by the Petitioners.

Be that as it may, we take note that the third Respondent does not oppose the prayer of the Petitioners that registered workmen of the choice of the Petitioners must be permitted to undertake the work. The Petitioners are in law certainly entitled to get the work done by the registered workmen of their choice. We are not going into the larger question in these petitions as to whether even without registration, the Petitioners are entitled to get such work done.

In the result, these petitions are allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 shall afford necessary protection to the Petitioners against any obstruction by the third Respondent to get the work of loading and unloading of the Petitioners done/performed by the workmen who are registered under Rule 26A.