AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner against the obstruction caused by the 3rd and the 4th respondents and their men in unloading the cement bags.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take action pursuant to Exhibit P2 complaint.
iii. Issue such other writ order or direction as one just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. To permit the petitioner to dispense with filing of translation of exhibits in vernacular language along with the writ petition.” (SIC)
The petitioner is carrying out the business of cement and painting materials in the name and style Gowri Stores. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the wholesale distributor of Ramco Cements. It is stated that daily more than 600 cement bags are unloaded in the godown of the petitioner. The head load workers under the 3rd and the 4th respondents, who were unloading the cement materials for the past 10 years, had started to demand exorbitant rates per cement bags is the submission. Due to this, it is stated that the petitioner is forced to unload the materials in another area. The petitioner filed Exts.P1 and P2 complaints before the 2nd respondent for Police protection. There is no assistance given by the Police authorities is the grievance. Hence this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Even though, notice is served to respondent Nos.3 and 4, there is no appearance.
The counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that, as on today, the area is not covered by the Kerala Headload Workers [Regulation of Employment and welfare] Scheme, 1983. If that is the case, the petitioner can engage his own workers to do the loading and unloading work. The counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that there is a proposal to include this area under the scheme. As long as the area is not covered by the scheme, I think the petitioner is free to engage his own workers. If there is any objection from respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at that stage, the 2nd respondent is bound to afford adequate Police protection.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.
1) The 2nd respondent is directed to afford adequate Police protection to the petitioner, if there is any obstructions caused by 3rd and 4th respondents in loading and unloading cement bags in the petitioner's premises, when the petitioner is engaging his own workers.
2) I make it clear that the above order is available only, if Kerala Headload Workers [Regulation of Employment and welfare] Scheme, 1983 is not implemented in the area.