Disposed

Sherlinkumari R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2020WP(C)/12802/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought protection to operate her poultry farm without interference from trade unions seeking forced engagement for loading/unloading. The court held that since the farm is outside a scheme covered area, the petitioner can engage her own workers or family members and directed the police to ensure no interference.

What did the court decide?

Director the 2nd respondent to afford adequate protection to the petitioner to engage her own workers or family members to carry out loading and unloading operations without interference by respondent

Sherlinkumari R. Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.12802 OF 2020(A)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SHERLIN KUMARI R., AISWARYA BHAVAN, KOTTAMPALLY, KANDALA, MARANALLOOR P.O., MARANALLOOR PANCHAYATH, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 512.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

¶10

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, MARANALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512.

¶11

3 CITU KANDALA UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SAJI ROY, KANDALA, MARANALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 512.

¶12

4 INTUC KANDALA UNIT, REGISTRATION NO.87/74, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY JOHNY, KANDALA, MARANALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 512.

¶13

5 BMS KANDALA UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.ANI, KOTTAMPALLY UNIT, KANDALA, MARANALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 512.

¶14

*ADDL R6 THE HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD

¶15

IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29-06-2020 IN WP(C)12802/2020

¶16

WP(C).No.12802 OF 2020 2

¶17

R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.PRASAD R6 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

¶18

SRI S KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC SRI BIMAL K NATH, SR GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.12802 OF 2020 3

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

~~~~~~~~

¶23

The petitioner contends that she is running a poultry farm in the name and style “Aiswarya Poultry Farm” at Maranalloor Grama Panchayat after obtaining all necessary permits and licences from the concerned Authority and also from the Pollution Control Board. According to her, the physical labour in the farm is being carried out by herself and her family members. She asserts that the place wherein the farm is situated is not a scheme covered area. When poultry feed was brought to the farm, the respondents 3 to 5 demanded that they be permitted to unload the goods. However, since the farm is not situated in a scheme covered area, she is entitled to engage her own workers or utilize the service of her family members to unload the feed. When the petitioner refused to accede to their illegal demands, she and her family members were threatened. Owing to the threats and obstructions caused by respondents 3 to 5, they are not able to run the farm. The petitioner therefore, approached the 2^nd respondent and filed a complaint. However, no action was taken. Complaining of inaction, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to afford effective

¶24

WP(C).No.12802 OF 2020 4

¶25

protection to the petitioner to carry out the loading and unloading operations in the establishment of the petitioner.

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Headload

¶27

Workers Welfare Fund Board submitted that the poultry farm run by the petitioner is not situated in the scheme covered area.

¶28

Sri. V.P.Prasad, the learned counsel who appeared for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that their workers were being engaged by the petitioner for the past several years and though the establishment is not situated in a scheme covered area, they may not be prevented from carrying out the loading and unloading works in the farm.

¶29

4. I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶30

Admittedly, the poultry farm run by the petitioner is not situated

¶31

in a scheme covered area. In that view of the matter, it is open for the petitioner to engage her own workers or to carry out the work herself or with the assistance of her family members. The respondents 3 to 5 will not be justified in insisting that they should be engaged for the loading and unloading works.

¶32

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to afford adequate protection to the petitioner to carry out the work in Aiswarya Poultry Farm run by her and also to engage her own

¶33

WP(C).No.12802 OF 2020 5

¶34

workers or her family members to carry out the loading and unloading operations without any interference by respondents 3 to 5.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

sru

¶39

WP(C).No.12802 OF 2020 6

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.A3-18/20-21 OF THE MARANALLUR PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM THE KERALA FIRE AND RESCUE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/05/2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT STATION HOUSE OFFICER MARANALLOR POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MARANALLOR POLICE STATION.

¶43

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Sherlinkumari R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sherlinkumari R. v. State of Kerala

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

Joby T.J Vs the District Police Chief

Binu S., Vs C.G.Vinod

Jose Moothedan, Vs Shri. David John

Asha Reji Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Hashim a. Vs the Motor Vehicles Registering Authority Cum the Regional Transport Officer

Dr. Aji Raj Vs Managing Director, Milma