Intercontinental Traders vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Intercontinental Traders vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 17, 2020

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1836633

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1836633
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque
Decided On: Jan 17, 2020
Case Number: WP(C)/30134/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Intercontinental Traders

Respondent

The Sub Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....petitioner's establishment. the petitioner placed reliance on the larger bench judgment of this court in theresa jose v. sub inspector of police, thoppumpady and others [2015 (3) khc 487].4. this court cannot decide the disputed question of fact in regard to the activities of the petitioner's establishment. the nature of activities will have to be wp(c).no.30134/2019 3 decided by the competent authority. whether the activitiesare incidental or main activity can be decided only based on evidence. the petitioner is admittedly engaged in the business of spices. the petitioner also admits that they require manpower for loading and unloading. in view of thedisputed issue related to the engagement of headload workers, it is proper to approach the appropriate forum. as of now, this court cannot grant any police protection to the petitioner for the simple reason that the area is coveredunder the scheme. therefore, the petitioner cannot engage their own employees. if the petitioner wants to engage their own employees who have no registration, the petitioner can approach the assistant labour officer and the assistant labour can decide whether activities in the establishment is only incidental and the act as such would not apply.in the light of the discussions as above, there is no scope for issuing any direction for police protection. accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. sd/- a.muhamed mustaque judge lnwp(c).no.30134/2019 4 wp(c).no.30134/2019 5 appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: exhibit p1 a true copy of the trade license dated 2 november 2019 issued by the kottayi panchayat. exhibit p2 a true copy of the information provided by the second respondent dated july 24, 2019. exhibit p3 a true copy of the complaint along with acknowledgment dated 04.11.2019. exhibit p4 the true copy of the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 27TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.30134 OF 2019(N) PETITIONER/S: INTERCONTINENTAL TRADERS, 5/590, KARIYAMKODE P.O., KOTTAYI, PALAKAKD-678 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.K.V.WINSTON SMT.ANU JACOB RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYI POLICE STATION, PALAKAKD, PIN-678 572. 2 THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, AM COMPLEX, TB ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER. 3 CENTRE FOR INDIAN TRADE UNIONS(CITU), HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNIT, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD-678 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4 INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION OF CONGRESS (INTUC), HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNIT, KOTTAYI, PALAKAKD-678 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 5 SWATANTHRA TOZHILALI UNION(STU) HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNIT, KOTTAYI, PALAKAKD-678 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R2 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, KHWWB R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.NIMOD BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.30134/2019 2

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of January 2020 The petitioner is an establishment engaged in the business of spices. They approached this Court for police protection. This Court passed an interim order on 20.11.2019. The said interim order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.12.2019 in W.A.No.2484/2019.

2. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the area where the establishment operates, was not covered under the Scheme framed under the Headload Workers Act, 1978 (for short, the 'Act'). Pending writ petition, a notification was issued covering the area under the scheme.

3. The petitioner's case is that since loading and

unloading is incidental to the main activity, the Act will not apply to the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner placed reliance on the larger bench judgment of this Court in Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police, Thoppumpady and Others [2015 (3) KHC 487].

4. This Court cannot decide the disputed question of

 fact    in    regard        to   the    activities         of      the   petitioner's
 establishment.        The    nature         of    activities     will    have    to    be
WP(C).No.30134/2019                 3
 decided by the competent authority.           Whether the activities

are incidental or main activity can be decided only based on

 evidence.       The   petitioner    is   admittedly   engaged    in   the
 business of spices.         The petitioner also admits that they
 require manpower for loading and unloading.            In view of the

disputed issue related to the engagement of headload workers, it is proper to approach the appropriate forum. As of now, this Court cannot grant any police protection to the petitioner for the simple reason that the area is covered

under the scheme. Therefore, the petitioner cannot engage their own employees. If the petitioner wants to engage their own employees who have no registration, the petitioner can approach the Assistant Labour Officer and the Assistant Labour can decide whether activities in the establishment is only incidental and the Act as such would not apply.

In the light of the discussions as above, there is no scope for issuing any direction for police protection. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE ln

WP(C).No.30134/2019 4 WP(C).No.30134/2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE DATED 2 NOVEMBER 2019 ISSUED BY THE KOTTAYI PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED JULY 24, 2019. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 04.11.2019. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED DECEMBER 27, 2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED DECEMBER 28, 2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2019. EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO. 7/2019-20 KZM DATED DECEMBER,2019. EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF AN IDENTITY CARD ISSUED UNDER THE SCHEMO TO A REGISTERED WORKER AT KARIYAMKODE KOTTAYIL, DATED 27-12-2019.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Intercontinental Traders vs The Sub Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque