Disposed

Mary George v. the Superintendant of Police, Kottayam

Kerala HC2 Nov 2017WP(C)/34482/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a drug wholesaler, filed a writ petition alleging obstruction in her godown by trade unions demanding employment. The court reserved judgment on whether her establishment is covered under the Headload Workers Act, noting the union's complaint is pending before the Authority, and directed the Superintendent of Police to ensure protection against any obstruction in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Superintendent of Police to provide adequate police protection to prevent any obstruction in the petitioner's establishment.

Mary George Vs the Superintendant of Police, Kottayam — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/ 11TH KARTHIKA, 1939 WP(C).No. 34482 of 2017 (I) ----------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MARY GEORGE,

¶7

AGED 58 YEARS,W/O GEORGE JOSEPH, KOYICKAL HOUSE,

¶8

PUTHUPALLI VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR SRI.R.RAHUL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE,SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶12

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶13

KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION,KODIMATHA,KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶14

RAJU,

¶15

THE CONVENER,CITU,CENTRAL JUNCTION,KOTTAYAM-686016.

¶16

CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS(CITU), REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT,CITU, CENTRAL JUNCTION,KOTTAYAM-686016.

¶17

INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS(INTUC), REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT INTUC, INTUC BUILDING,KOTTAYAM-686121.

¶18

R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 34482 of 2017 (I)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE LICENSING AUTHORITY,DRUGS CONTROL DEPARTMENT DATED 29.05.2017

¶24

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION) OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.3145 KERALA SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF LICENSE (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION),NO G/XV/687/17-18 ISSUED BY THE MUNCIPAL OFFICE KOTTAYAM DATED 25.08.2017

¶26

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S FIRM'S AT PALACE ROAD,KOTTAYAM

¶27

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION BY PETITIONER TO HEAD LOAD WORKERS BOARD,KOTTAYAM DATED 19.08.2017

¶28

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)BY THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,KOTTAYAM DATED 07.10.2017

¶29

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.10.2017

¶30

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT(WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)OF THE PETITIONER MADE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2017

¶31

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2017.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S.TO JUDGE

css/

Antony Dominic & Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ.

¶37

WPC No.34482 of 2017

¶38

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2017

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Antony Dominic, J.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. Though notice is served, there is no representation on behalf of the 5^th respondent.

¶42

The petitioner is engaged in the whole sale business of

¶43

drugs and other pharmaceutical products. Her office and godown are situated in the Palace Road, Kottayam. According to the petitioner, though there is some incidental work of loading and unloading, having regard to the law laid down by the larger bench of this Court in the judgment in Theresa Jose v Sub Inspector of Police, Thoppumpady¹ , it is stated that despite the above legal position, the party respondents were demanding nokkukooli and when she refused to accede to the demand, they 1 2015 (3) KHC 487

¶44

WPC No.34482 of 2017 2

¶45

have started demanding work in her godown. According to her, she has her own workers and therefore, the demand for providing the work could not be conceded. It is stated that the activities in the godown and office are restrained by the party respondents. It is with this allegation, she filed a complaint to the police and alleging of inaction on the part of the police, the writ petition is filed seeking orders of police protection.

¶46

The stand taken by respondents 3 and 4 is that the area is covered by a scheme framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. According to them, the members of the union are doing similar works in other similar establishments and are therefore, entitled to be provided to work in the petitioner's establishment also. They say that they have already moved the Chairman of the headload workers Welfare Fund Board, Kottayam by making a complaint of denial of employment and that the said authority is seized of the matter.

¶47

If as stated by the petitioner her business establishment is not an establishment under the Kerala Headload Workers, in the light of the judgment of this Court referred to above, there

¶48

WPC No.34482 of 2017 3

¶49

cannot be any demand for work in her godown. However, having regard to the fact that the said issue has, necessarily, to be considered by the authority to whom the unions have already made a complaint, we do not want to pronounce on that issue in the proceedings. Therefore, it will be open to the union to pursue Ext.P6. We direct that, in the meanwhile, if any activities in the petitioner's establishment is obstructed, the second respondent shall provide adequate police protection to prevent the same.

¶50

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶51

sd/- Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶52

css/

¶53

true copy

¶54

P.S.TO JUDGE

Mary George v. the Superintendant of Police, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary George v. the Superintendant of Police, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

T.N.Ashok Kumar Vs the District Collector

P.B.Sali Vs the Superintendent of Police

Falcon Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Police

Beenamma Vs the Director General of Police

M/S. Lifeline Super Specialty Hospital Vs the State of Kerala