Disposed

M. Valsalakumari v. the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangad

Kerala HC20 Jul 2021WP(C)/12500/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection against obstruction of her hollow brick unit by union convenors. Court held the unit is outside the scheme area, allowing the petitioner to engage her own workers. It directed the petitioner to approach police for relief in case future obstructions occur.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent if any obstruction is caused.

M. Valsalakumari Vs the Circle Inspector of Police… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 12500 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶6

WP(C) NO. 12500 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

M. VALSALAKUMARI PROPRIETRIX, PRASANTH HOLLOW BRICKS, THANNIMOODU, IRINCHAYAM P. O., NEDUMANGAD,

¶9

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 561.

¶10

BY ADVS. MANU GOVIND MEERA BALAKRISHNAN AYESHA MARIA JOHN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541.

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541.

¶14

3 VIJAYAN AGED 65 YEARS CONVENOR, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (AITUC), RESIDING AT VIJI BHAVAN, PACHAKKAD, THANNIMOODU, IRINCHAYAM P. O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 561.

¶15

4 BASHEER AGED 68 YEARS CONVENOR, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (CITU), RESIDING AT KANNANKODE, KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, THANNIMOODU, IRINCHAYAM P. O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 561. 5 RAVEENDRAN AGED 65 YEARS CONVENOR, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (BMS), RESIDING AT VADAKKUMKARA PUTHENVEEDU, THANNIMOODU, IRINCHAYAM P. O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 561. 6 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, SRM ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018, REP. BY

¶16

WP(C) NO. 12500 OF 2021 2

¶17

ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶18

BY SRI S KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC SRI THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 12500 OF 2021 3

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Being aggrieved by the interference of the respondents 3 to 5, Convenors

¶23

of various Headload workers unions, in the running of the hollow bricks manufacturing unit run by the petitioner, she has approached this Court with this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to provide effective and meaningful police protection to the peaceful running of the petitioner’s brick manufacturing unit from any interference from respondents 3 to 5 or anybody claiming through them.

¶25

According to the petitioner, she has been running the unit since the year

¶26

When the obstruction was caused by the Union leaders in the year 2000, she had approached this Court seeking police protection and this Court by Ext.P1 judgment had granted protection as prayed for. It is further contended that on 6.06.2021, when a load of cement was brought to the petitioner’s establishment, the party respondents obstructed and demanded unreasonable amounts for unloading the goods. This incident played over again on 12.06.2021. The petitioner contends that she has employed her own workers and as the establishment is not situated in an area where the provisions of the Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 has been extended, the union workers are not entitled to demand that the loading and unloading works should be entrusted with them.

¶27

WP(C) NO. 12500 OF 2021 4

¶28

Notice was issued to the party respondents. Though the same was served, none appears.

¶29

Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent on instructions submitted that the establishment, which is situated at Thannimoodu, Irinchayam P.O. is not in a scheme covered area.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶31

The establishment run by the petitioner is not situated 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. The respondents 3 to 5 will not be justified in insisting that they should be engaged in the loading and unloading works.

¶32

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent if any obstruction is caused to the running of Prasanth Hollow bricks at Thannimoodu. If any such complaint is received, respondents 1 and 2 shall take immediate action and ensure that the petitioner is able to carry on the loading and unloading work in the establishment without any obstruction from the party respondents. No costs.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

DSV

¶37

WP(C) NO. 12500 OF 2021 5

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12500/2021

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2000 IN O.P.NO.29394 OF 2000. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.06.2021 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT (PETITION NO.71790/2021) DATED 16.06.2021 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER AS AGAINST EXHIBIT P2 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN BALAKRISHNA V CIRCLE INSPECTOR POLICE AND ORS. [2020(6)KHC 701]

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶42

NIL

M. Valsalakumari v. the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Valsalakumari v. the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangad

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

Malaichamy Vs State of Kerala

Anish Lal Vs the District Collector

Pullath Samad Vs the District Police Chief Malappuram

K.Ismail Vs the State of Kerala

Ma Joy, Vs Sub Registrar

Anitha Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala