M S PAREETH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Click here to view full judgement.
Cyriac Joseph, J. -
(1.) The petitioner in this Original Petition is one M.S.Pareeth, Proprietor of M/s.Madathil Traders, Nadakal P.O., Erattupetta, Kottayam District. The respondents are Sub Inspector of Police, Erattupetta Police Station; Circle Inspector of Police, Erattupetta; The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pala; Ramli, K.T.U.C.(J), KTUC(J) Office, Muttom Junction, Erattupetta; C.H.Basheer, I.N.T.U.C., INTUC Office, Aruvithura, Erattupetta; Sekharan, A.I.T.U.C., AITUC Office, Vadakkekkara Unit, Erattupetta; Pari, S.T.U., STU Office, League House, Market P.O., Erattupetta and Joy George, C.I.T.U., CITU Office, Thekkekkara, Erattupetta. The main prayer is for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner to carry on his business within his premises through his permanent workers. The petitioner also prays for a declaration that he peititoner is entitled to carry on his trade and business within his premises by employing his won permanent workers and employees of his choice.
(2.) According to the petitioner, he is a dealer in Asbestos Sheet, Cement and other building materials for the last so many years. The office and godown were situated in Thalappalam Village adjacent to the Erattupetta Grama panchayat. The office and godown were in rented premises. For the purpose of shifting his business from the rented premises, the petitioner purchased a suitable premises within the territorial jurisdiction of Erattupetta Grama Panchayat. At present he is doing business in the newly purchased premises. It is contended that the petitioner has got his own permanent workers for doing the loading and unloading work in connection with his business. Three workers who have been specially engaged for doing the loading and unloading works have got registration under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). They are M/s.Sanilkumar.P.T., Kannan.A., and Dominic Kurian. They are working as attached workers of the petitiioner s shop. Photo copies of the identity cards issued to the said three workers by the registering authority (Assistant Labour Officer) under the provisions of the Act have been produced as Ext.P1 series. It is seen that the identity cards were issued in Form XI under Rule 26A(3) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). In Column No.6 of the identity card, name and address of the employer are shown as M.S.Pareeth, Madathil, Nadackal P.O., Erattupetta. In Column No.7 of the identity card, the area where the worker normally works is shown as Madathil Traders Godown, Near College Stop. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the Registration Numbers in the identity cards, it could be seen that the identity cards were issued in June, 2002. it is also stated in the Original Petition that even after the shifting of the petitioner s stop to his own premises, all the above three workers continued to do the work in the new place of business. The petitioner s workers were doing the loading and unloading work within the premises which are enclosed by the compound wall and a well built gate. On 15.1.2003 at about 11 A.M. some persons claiming to the members of respondents 4 to 8 Trade Unions forcibly entered the premises of the petitioner and prevented the petitioners workers from doing the loading and unloading works. The members of respondents 4 to 8 Trade Unions threatened the petitioner and his workers with dire consequences if they continued the works. They attempted to manhandle the petitioner, his brothers and his permanent workers. Having left with no other alternative, the petitioner s workers ran away from the premises. One of the mini lorries with half load of materials in the vehicle is stranded in the premises of the petitioner. Respondents 4 to 8 and their members are not permitting the petitioner and his permanent workers either to unload the remaining materials or to take the lorry out of the compound. The members of respondents 4 to 8 unions are preventing the petitioner and his workers from entering into the premises. Though the petitioner approached respondents 1 to 3 by filing a petition requesting to take appropriate action against those who committed the atrocities within the premises of the petitioner s shop, the said respondents did not take any action to redress of the grievance of the petitioner. A copy of the petition dated 15.1.2003 submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent with copies to respondents 2 and 3 has been produced as Ext.P2.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 6 to 8. There is no representation for respondents 4 and 5. The Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 3.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.