Disposed

Unistone Pavers and Blocks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2024WP(C)/276/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cement products firm sought police protection against trade unions demanding gawking charges despite its use of hydraulic cranes for unloading. The court held such demands unjustified when manual services are not rendered and directed police to assist on complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach respondents 2 to 19 on obstruction; police to provide assistance and ensure unloading with mechanized devices is not obstructed.

Unistone Pavers and Blocks Pvt. Ltd. Vs State… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 276 OF 2024

¶3

PETITIONER :-

¶4

UNISTONEPAVERSANDBLOCKSPVT.LTD.,AGED54YEARS
3/30,THENUMKUTTIL,VARIKOLI,THIRUVANIYOORVILLAGE,
ERNAKULAMRURAL,KERALA,REPRESENTEDBYITSMANAGING
DIRECTORT.K.REJI,AGED54YEARS,SONOFKURIAKO,
RESIDINGATTHENUMKUTTIL,VARIKOLI,THIRUVANIYOOR
VILLAGE,ERNAKULAMRURAL,KERALA,PIN-682308

¶5

BYADVPEEYUSA.KOTTAM

¶6

RESPONDENTS :-

¶7

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

¶8

2 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (L AND O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RANGE, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695934

¶9

3 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, C.V.RAMANPILLAI ROAD, THYCAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶10

4 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM MARINE DRIVE WALKWAY, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682011

¶11

5 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, RAMAVARMAPURAM POAD, PATTIMOOLA, MANNUMKAD, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680631

¶12

6 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MALAPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673009

¶13

7 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

¶14

WP(C)NO.276OF2024

¶15

¶16

MUNDAKKAL,KOLLAM,PIN-691001

¶17

8 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THRISSUR OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, G5CR-H2C, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶18

9 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, DPO ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶19

10 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OPPOSITE DOORADARSHAN RELAY CENTRE, KALPATTA, IDUKKI, PIN - 673122

¶20

11 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TQFR + 5C, THAZHEVETTIPRAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645

¶21

12 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KUMALI ROAD, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002

¶22

13 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERUTHONI OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA, PULAYANMALA ROAD, IDUKKI COLONY, CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI, PIN - 685607

¶23

14 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PARAKATTA VIDYA NAGAR, ULIYATHADKA ROAD, KUDLU, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671123

¶24

15 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CCSB ROAD, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012

¶25

16 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VQFC+XG-2, TALAP, KANNUR, PIN - 670002

¶26

17 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), ALUVA OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUB-JAIL ROAD, POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, PIN - 683101

¶27

WP(C)NO.276OF2024

¶28

¶29

18 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 23QQ+PQR, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505

¶30

19 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUKACHAL KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, SH 9, KARUKACHAL, KERALA, PIN - 686540

¶31

20 KERALA HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶32

CITU KERALA STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE,

¶33

E BALANANDAN MEMORIAL BUILDING, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶34

21 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (INTUC) INTUC STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE,

¶35

K. KARUNAKARAN SMARAKA INTUC MANDIRAM, TC43/1027 (7), PARUTHIKUZHY, MANACAD P.O,

¶36

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009

¶37

22 ALL KERALA HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION UNITED TRADE UNION CONGRESS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶38

23 KERALA HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (AITUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE SECRETARY, JUDGES AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682017

¶39

24 KERALA HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (BMS), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 41, 3628, CHITTOOR ROAD, NORTH KALOOR, PULLEPADY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682018

¶40

BY SRI.P.M.SHAMEER, GP

¶41

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON01.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶42

WP(C)NO.276OF2024

¶43

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

The petitioner, a firm specializing in the production and distribution of

¶46

cement-based products such as paver blocks and cement blocks, contends that their business activities include the delivery of these goods across the State using a specially designed truck. This truck is outfitted with a hydraulic crane and is accompanied by tipper lorries, both of which have been duly registered with the Motor Vehicle Department. The petitioner highlights the efficiency of their delivery system, noting that the products are securely packaged in high-density cardboard that weighs more than one tonne per packet, thus eliminating the need for manual labor during the unloading

¶47

process. Despite this mechanized unloading method, the petitioner faces obstructions and threats from headload workers in the area who demand payment for "gawking charges," a fee purportedly for watching the unloading process, even though the workers are not physically involved due to the use of hydraulic cranes for unloading. The petitioner contends that

¶48

this demand is unwarranted and has been held so by a Division Bench of this Court while rendering Ext.P6 judgment. It is contended that this Court has held that if the unloading work is performed using mechanical devices, workers or trade union members cannot legitimately claim "Nokku kooli" or gawking charges. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P7 judgment rendered by

¶49

WP(C)NO.276OF2024

¶50

¶51

this Court issued under similar circumstances and contends that demand for any charges by any name cannot be claimed by the headload workers.

¶52

It is submitted that on 22.12.2023 when the petitioner attempted to unload their products at Luxon Motors Showroom at Karukachal, workers of certain trade unions demanded gawking charges. The vehicle of the petitioner was illegally restrained for over 20 hours despite the law laid down by the Court that the workers have no right to carry out any obstruction.

¶53

It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶54

“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby command the respondents 2 to19 and subordinate officials to provide adequate and effective police protection to the employees of the petitioner firm and vehicles engaged for transporting and unloading the paver blocks, cement blocks and other cement products in different work site in Kerala State, using mechanized devices, without any manner of hindrance or obstruction from the headload workers or any persons claiming under them or their men and agents.”

¶55

Though notice was issued to respondents 20 to 24, they have not chosen to enter appearance.

¶56

The learned Government Pleader submitted that in one isolated instance at ‘Karukachal”, when obstruction was caused, police granted the

¶57

WP(C)NO.276OF2024

¶58

¶59

necessary protection.

¶60

Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that there is no justification on the part of the party respondents to demand compensation, known as "gawking charges" or "nokkukooli," for unloading services they do not render. The petitioner is using mechanized equipment to improve the efficiency of his network and delivery of products and to obviate the need for manual intervention, particularly in view of the substantial weight of the packaged product. In that view of the matter, the insistence on the payment of gawking charges by the party respondent when their manual unloading services are not employed cannot be justified.

¶61

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach respondents 2 to 19 if any obstruction is caused to the petitioner or their employees in unloading their materials in various work sites using mechanized devices. If any such complaint is lodged, the concerned respondent shall afford necessary assistance and protection to the petitioner and ensure that the unloading activities of the petitioner are not obstructed or interfered with.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶64

SMA

¶65

WP(C)NO.276OF2024

¶66

¶67

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 276/2024

¶68

PETITIONEREXHIBITS:-

¶69

ExhibitP1THETRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONSUBMITTEDBY
THEPETITIONERTOTHEDIRECTORGENERALOFPOLICE
THROUGHMAILDATED23.12.2023

¶70

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION DATED 23.12.2023

¶71

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OBTAINED FROM THE POLICE PORTAL DATED 23.12.2023

¶72

Exhibit P4 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE OBSTRUCTION BEING CAUSED BY THE UNION PEOPLE OF KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION LIMIT

¶73

Exhibit P5 THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING MECHANICAL LOADING AND UNLOADING BY THE PETITIONER VEHICLES FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING THE CEMENT PRODUCTS

¶74

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2010 IN W.P(C).1798/2010

¶75

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2022 IN W.P.(C) 25318/2021

Unistone Pavers and Blocks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unistone Pavers and Blocks Pvt. Ltd. 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

Abeesh K. Vs Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Thomas.v.J, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Narayanankutty.K.K Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

C.S. Ayoob Khan Vs the Joint Registrar (General)

Rajendra Prasad.S Vs the Paravur Snvrc Bank Ltd. NO.1685

Mohammed Roshan Vs the State of Kerala