Allowed

M.K.Johny v. the Station House Officer and Another

Kerala HC23 Nov 2010WP(C)/30596/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition sought protection to use a newly purchased crane for loading and unloading timber without obstruction by union members. The court allowed the petition, directing the police to protect the petitioner for crane use only, while prohibiting manual loading until a statutory dispute resolution.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to provide protection to the petitioner for doing works using a crane without threat from the second respondent.

M.K.Johny Vs the Station House Officer and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 30596 of 2010(Y)

¶6

----------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------

¶9

M.K.JOHNY, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KURIPPU, MANGALY HOUSE, MOOKKANNOOR P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------------

¶13

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY, PIN-683 572.

¶14

2. P.L.PAULACHAN, S/O.LOUIS, SECRETARY, INTUC, MOOKKANNOOR, MOOKKANNOOR P.O., PIN-683 577.

¶15

R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

svs/

¶18

WP(C).No. 30596/2010(Y)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE MOOKKANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/09/2010 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

R2(a):COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 01/04/2010

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

svs

**K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.30596 of 2010

¶29

Dated this the 23^rd day of November 2010

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

K.M.JOSEPH,J

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶33

i) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to provide sufficient and meaningful protection to the petitioner and his workers for doing all the works in his saw mill using crane and such other machinery without any threat or obstruction from the respondent 2 and their people to secure the ends of justice.

¶34

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶35

The petitioner is running a timber Saw Mill. He recently purchased a crane for loading and unloading of timber. It is his case that the 2^nd respondent is demanding money for use of the crane by the petitioner.

¶36

Counter affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent. He has produced Ext.R2(a) memorandum of settlement. It is stated to be the memorandum of settlement entered into between the

¶37

¶38

W.P.C.No.30596 of 2010

¶39

Association and the Union. In the counter affidavit, it is inter alia stated as follows. The petitioner has now purchased a crane and the union workers are denied of employment. The loading and unloading works which are being done by the registered head load workers cannot be substituted by machines or own workers of the employer. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The attempt of the petitioner is only to deny employment to the existing workers. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner wherein it is inter alia stated that Ext.R2(a) agreement is not binding on the petitioner as he is not engaging any worker for doing any head load work in the establishment. The petitioner's case is that it is not a scheme covered area.

¶40

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent reiterates the submissions made in the counter affidavit. He would submit that there is denial of employment and it is a labour dispute and the petitioner cannot make use of the purchased crane and displace the registered workers and get the work done through his own workers for loading and unloading

¶41

¶42

W.P.C.No.30596 of 2010

¶43

and it is a scheme covered area. There is no dispute that it is a scheme covered area. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, however, submits that the members of the 2^nd respondent are registered pool workers. Under the Head Load Workers Act, head load workers may be employees of a particular employer or they may be pool workers. In the case of pool workers, employer would be Head Load Workers Board. From time to time, on the basis of requisition by employers in the region, workers are alloted by the Board to those employers. Payments are expected to be made through the Board. The scheme of registration and the Rule also provides for the distinction between employees covered under a particular employer and employees who are working as pool workers. As long as the respondent do not have a case that they are employees of the petitioner, we do not see how we can appreciate the case of the respondent that there is denial of employment. It is settled law that the employer is free to make use of mechanical devices to do loading and unloading work. In a case where the employer has existing workers to do loading and unloading work, it is impermissible for him to displace the

¶44

¶45

W.P.C.No.30596 of 2010

¶46

existing workers by using mechanical devices unless he proceeds to terminate the services of those employees in the manner known to law.

¶47

But, in the facts of this case, since the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent does not have a case that the members of the party respondents are employees of the petitioner as such, it may not be open to them to resist the petitioner making use of mechanical devices to carry out loading and unloading work. It may be true that Ext.R2(a) provides for rates. But it may also be true that the petitioner may have made use of their services, as a crane is allegedly purchased only four weeks back. But, even then, we would think that as long as the workers were not employees of the petitioner and were being given employment by the petitioner from time to time as pool workers, it may not be open to the 2^nd respondent to prevent the use of mechanical devices as such.

¶48

In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing that in case the petitioner complains of any obstruction by the members of the Union of which the 2^nd respondent is the Secretary before the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent will look

¶49

¶50

W.P.C.No.30596 of 2010

¶51

into it and he will give protection to the petitioner for doing works in his Saw Mill using crane without any threat from the 2^nd respondent. We however make it clear that in the guise of this judgment, the petitioner cannot do loading and unloading work manually unless he does it through the registered workers. In other words, protection will be granted only for the purpose of doing loading and unloading work through crane. We leave it open to the 2^nd respondent to raise any dispute they may have before any statutory authority in which case the statutory authority will be free to proceed to consider the claim. The order in favour of petitioner will be subject to the decision to be taken by the statutory authority.

¶52

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶53

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶54

jsr

¶55

// True Copy// PA to Judge

¶56

W.P.C.No.30596 of 2010 6

¶57

¶58

W.P.C.No.30596 of 2010

¶59

K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶60

.No. of 200

¶61

ORDER/JUDGMENT

¶62

30/082010

M.K.Johny v. the Station House Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Johny v. the Station House Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Velayudhan Nadar Narayanan Nadar Vs Velayudhan Nadar Govindan Nadar

Bava Vs State of Kerala and Another

M. Nandakumar Vs Superintendent of Police

Vellachikochu Vs State of Kerala

Somaraj Vs the Dy.S.P of Police

Faizal Vs the City Police Commissioner & Others