Next Sales Corporation vs Sub Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor

Dr. Manjula Chellur, C.J.—Petitioner is before this Court contending that they have permanent Head Load workers registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules. Their identity cards are marked as Exts.P2 to P8. According to petitioner, members of respondent 5 and 6, without having any legal right are demanding that they alone should be engaged in loading and unloading work in the business of petitioner and they are even creating nuisance, obstructing the work to be carried on by the registered workers of petitioner. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that subsequent to filing of writ petition, they have put up a temporary shed in which they are conducting ''Dharna'', which draws attention of the customers who come to petitioner''s unit.

In response to this writ petition, 4th respondent/Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board has filed a counter affidavit explaining the factual situation. According to 4th respondent/Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board, earlier, petitioner was conducting business at Perumbavoor Unit and they could engage Head Load workers from Pool No.16. Subsequently, the said establishment was shifted to Karattupallikkara and now, concerned pool is Pool Nos.4 and 4B. They further contend that though petitioner claims to have registered workers as per Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, there was no consultation with the Board prior to issuance of 26(A) registration cards by the Asst. Labour Officer. therefore, they are not valid. More or less, supporting the contentions raised by 4th respondent, other respondents have also placed on record their objections and they contend that they have never obstructed functioning of the Unit of petitioner in any manner. According to them, there are 20 families in Pool Nos. 4 and 4B and if petitioner denies lawful work entitled by these families, which is nothing but depriving them of their livelihood.

During the course of arguments, it is brought on record that when an objection was raised with regard to issuance of Rule 26A registration cards without consultation process, as envisaged under Rule 26A(2) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, the matter was raised before the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam/Appellate Authority by filing an appeal. There is no stay of registration cards issued in favour of petitioner. Till a decision is taken with regard to validity of registration cards issued with reference to Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, neither 4th respondent/Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board nor members of 5th and 6th respondent Union could question the work carried on by registered workers. Even if, petitioner engages workers of his own, denying work to the pool workers concerned, it does not give them any statutory right to create nuisance and obstruct which come in the way of law and order situation at the work site. It does not vest them with any right to take law into their hands and create problems to the petitioner. So far as conducting ''Dharna'', it does not affect work of the establishment of petitioner and if the same is peacefully conducted as claimed by the respondents'' Counsel, we cannot ask the police to intervene and stop the same. In the light of above observations, we direct 1st and 2nd respondents/Police to intervene and do the needful, only if there is any situation which calls for their interference on account of law and order situation. Otherwise, they shall not intervene in the labour dispute pending between the parties.

Writ Petition is disposed of.