Disposed

Shameel.M v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC11 Jun 2019WP(C)/12107/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner alleged non-application of rule 26a identity cards. The court directed the Assistant Labour Officer to expedite and consider the pending application within one month and ordered the Board to cooperate with the hearing.

What did the court decide?

Returned the petition. Ordered the 6th respondent to expedite and pass orders within one month, with cooperation from the Board.

Shameel.M Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1941 WP(C).No. 12107 of 2019

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SHAMEEL.M, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O M VEERANKUTY, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S GRAND TRADERS, DOOR NO 16/242-B KARASSERY, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 602.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 573.

¶12

2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE 673 602.

¶13

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE 673 602.

¶14

4 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (HMS), MUKKOM , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN 673 602.

¶15

5 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/EXECUTIVE OFFICER,KARASSERY, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE 673 602.

¶16

6 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 573.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, KHWWB SMT.A.SIMI

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SR. GP. P.P.THAJUDHEEN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.12107/2019

::2::

JUDGMENT

K.Vinod Chandran, J

¶25

The petitioner is carrying on a business within

¶26

Kozhikode District in a scheme covered area and he intends to carry on loading and unloading of his business with his own workers. The petitioner has also filed an application before the Assistant Labour Officer, the 6^th respondent for getting Rule 26A Identity Cards for his own workers engaged in loading and unloading works. The application is said to have been filed on 30.01.2019 which has not been considered till date.

¶27

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader

¶28

submits that already notice has been issued to the Board in the application filed before the Assistant Labour Officer. The learned Counsel for the 4^th respondent submits that they represent the pool workers in the scheme covered area. The 5^th respondent is the Board. The 5^th respondent submits that the area

¶29

WP(C) No.12107/2019

¶30

::3::

¶31

is a scheme covered area and there is a pool

¶32

constituted, the workers of which are represented by the 4^th respondent union.

¶33

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submits that the allegation of obstruction caused to the business is untrue. They submit that they are entitled to the loading and unloading work in

¶34

the petitioner's establishment and that they are not called upon for a hearing before the 6^th respondent in the applications filed by the petitioner.

¶35

4. We are of the opinion that the Act and

¶36

Rules does not provide for a hearing to the Union, who

¶37

will be represented before the 6^th respondent by the Board. Considering the fact that the applications are filed before the 6^th respondent are pending for six months, the 6^th respondent shall expedite and the Board shall also cooperate with the hearing. The

¶38

applications shall be considered and orders passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till the applications are considered and orders

¶39

WP(C) No.12107/2019

¶40

::4::

¶41

are passed the police would afford necessary protection if any obstruction to the loading and unloading work in

¶42

the petitioner's establishment is caused on a claim raised by the pool workers constituted under the Act and Rules; which would be continued if the petitioner's own workers obtain Rule 26 A Identity Cards.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of. No order as

to costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

jma

JUDGE

WP(C) No.12107/2019

::5::

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE NAMES OF THE WORKERS AND THEIR TEMPORARY REGISTRATION NUMBER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.4.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT 1 TO 3

¶57

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 1.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE KARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATTH TO THE PETITIONER

Shameel.M v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameel.M v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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

Gokulan,S/O. Late Hariharan, Vs the District Police Chief

G.Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Vellapally Natesan, Vs M.P.Preejith

M/S. Jas Granites Aggregates Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police

Co-Operative School of Law Vs the State of Kerala

Haseena Beevi Vs the Circle Inspector of Police, Karunagapally.