Ashok Bhushan, Ag.C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent Unions.
2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 & 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection for loading and unloading of electrical and plumping materials in the godown established in building No.TP XXI/165, and shop functioning in building No.TP XXI/309, 310, 311 of Vettilathazham Ward of Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat without being obstructed by any manner by the respondents 5 to 7 and their union members or any other persons.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 & 2 to give effective police protection to engage workers of the choice of the petitioner/his permanent workers for doing the loading and unloading of electrical and plumping materials in the godown maintained by the Petitioner.”
3. Petitioner's case is that the petitioner is the managing partner of 'M/s.M.S. Electro Devices' which firm is engaged in the field of stocking and selling of electric devices and plumping materials. Petitioner stated that his firm had a godown to stock the electrical and plumping materials for distribution in the State. It has further been stated that the area in question is not a scheme covered area under the Kerala Headload Workers Act but respondents 5 to 7 Unions and their members are obstructing the loading and unloading work in the godown claiming their engagement.
4. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Board stated that the area in question is not a scheme covered area. Learned counsel for the respondent Unions submit that since the petitioner's firm does not have their own workers, they are obliged to engage workers from the respondent Unions.
5. Refuting the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the area is not a scheme covered area, it is the discretion of the petitioner to engage workers of their choice and if necessary, they can engage workers from the respondent Unions also.
6. Considering the fact that the area is not a scheme covered area, we are of the view that respondents 5 to 7 have no right to obstruct the loading and unloading work done by the petitioner's firm nor they can claim that the petitioner should engage the workers of their Unions alone. Petitioner's firm has the right either to engage their own workers or to engage the workers of respondent Unions.
In view of the aforesaid, we direct the 2nd respondent to ensure that no obstruction is created by respondents 5 to 7 Unions in carrying out the loading and unloading work by the petitioner. It is also made clear that it shall be the discretion of the petitioner's firm to engage their own workers or to engage workers from the respondents 5 to 7 unions.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/10/12