LAWS(KER)-2018-6-13

SAFA SYSTEM & SOLUTIONS Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION

Decided On June 01, 2018
Safa System And Solutions Appellant
V/S
Station House Officer Palarivattom Police Station Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before us seeking police protection from the alleged threat held out by the 5th respondent-Union and its members.

(2.) The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of purchase and sale of mobile phones of high quality. Ext.P1 is the registration certificate of the firm and Exts.P2 to Ext.P4 are the tax invoices evidencing purchase of the phones in bulk from different companies. The phones are transported to the petitioner's godown. The firm also supplies mobile phones in different consignments addressed to the consumers at different places. Ext.P5 series are copies of such invoices. The mobile phones are loaded and unloaded by the petitioner firm as delicate sensitive equipments, to be handled with utmost care by experienced persons engaged by the petitioner. The consignments are to be unloaded and then despatched to different consumers in closed vehicles, which is done by the permanent staff of the petitioner firm. Dropping of parcel of mobile phones or handling negligently will cause huge loss to the firm. Hence, the petitioner cannot engage the general headload workers for loading and unloading of mobile phones. The 5th respondent-Union and its members approached the petitioner firm and demanded loading and unloading work for their members and they even caused obstruction to the work being done by the permanent workers of the petitioner firm. This resulted in stoppage of business, causing huge loss to the firm. Ext.P6 complaint was filed before the 1st respondent seeking police protection for loading and unloading of mobile phones. But no action has been taken. The petitioner, therefore, prays that sufficient and adequate protection may be afforded to the petitioner firm by issuing specific directions to respondents 1 to 3 so as to enable the firm to continue their business of mobile phones.

(3.) The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, denying the averments in the petition. It is stated that the area is a scheme covered area and hitherto the loading and unloading of mobile phones, which comes in large packages, were being carried out by the loading workers registered with the pool. They are also doing similar work in the other mobile shops in the locality. The 4th respondent had approached the petitioner to get his concern registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Act 1978 ('the Act' for short) . This has prompted the petitioner to approach this court with this writ raising false averments against the party respondents.