W.P.(C)No.19878/24 1 2025:KER:27500 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 19878 OF 2024 PETITIONER: RAM NIVAS SINGH AGED 68 YEARS S/O . LATE JUNG BAHADUR SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR VIJAYA FOUNDATION PVT LTD B-9, PILLAI VEEDU NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695044 BY ADVS. C.S.AJITH PRAKASH T.K.DEVARAJAN BABU M. M.B.SOORI ANCY THANKACHAN NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN XAVIER K.K. AKASH JOSHI SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN VILASINI NAYAK W.P.(C)No.19878/24 2 2025:KER:27500 RESPONDENTS: 1 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER KOCHI CITY OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, THEVARA, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682015 3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANANGAD POLIC E STATION, PANANGAD, MADAVANA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682506 4 K.N SIDDIQUE KADAYAPPARAMBIL, MADAVANA, PANNGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506 5 K.A SALAM KATTIPPARAMBIL, MADAVANA PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506 6 HARSHAD ALI ARAYANTHARA, NETTOOR P.O MARADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682040 7 ALTHAF PUTHEZHATHU, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506 W.P.(C)No.19878/24 3 2025:KER:27500 BY ADVS. P.K.IBRAHIM K.P.AMBIKA(A-656) ZEENATH P.K.(K/001999/2023) JABEENA K.M.(K/002008/2023) ANAZ BIN IBRAHIM(K/2796/2023) OTHER PRESENT: GP AJITH VISHWANATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.11.2024, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.19878/24 4 2025:KER:27500 V.G.ARUN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.19878 of 2024 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Managing Director of a company engaged in executing piling works required for the construction of a multi-storeyed building complexes. The construction work of the administrative and academic blocks of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS), Panangad was awarded to Sree Gokulam Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. The said company invited a sub contract for piling works of the project and petitioner's company being the successful bidder, was awarded the work. While bhoomi pooja at the piling site was in progress, certain persons under the leadership of respondents 4 to 7 came to the site and demanded that the members of their union should be engaged for the work. As the petitioner is having its own permanent workers and the work requires experts at different W.P.(C)No.19878/24 5 2025:KER:27500 stages like jally work, concrete work, surface boring, riggers etc., the petitioner could not accede to the demand. Thereupon, it was threatened that unless their demand is met, the work will be obstructed. The petitioner therefore sought police protection and aggrieved by the delay on the part of the police in taking action, filed this writ petition. 2. Heard, Adv.C.S.Ajith Prakash for the petitioner, Adv.Raman Kartha for respondents 4,5 and 7, Adv.P.K.Ibrahim for the 6th respondent, and Government Pleader Ajith Viswanathan for the official respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only piling work requires expertise and petitioner has experienced persons on its rolls. Even if persons from outside are to be engaged, they should be having the expertise. The members of the respondent's unions do not have the experience and cannot therefore be engaged for the work. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 23.05.2024 of this Court in M/s.Royal Infraconstru Ltd.v.State House Officer in W.P.(C).No.17676 W.P.(C)No.19878/24 6 2025:KER:27500 of 2024, to point out that under identical circumstances this Court had directed police protection to be granted for carrying out the piling work. 4. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that members of the union are persons engaged in various types of construction works in Panangad area and have sufficient experience in piling work. It is contended that, since the petitioner's company is engaged in construction work, it has to obtain registration under Section 7 of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Further, sections 15 and 30 of the Act require every employer to maintain a register in the prescribed form showing the details of beneficiaries employed in the building or other construction work. Building workers registered under Section 12 are called beneficiaries and issued with identity cards. The above provisions leaves no room for doubt that only a registered employer, complying with the requirements of the Act, can undertake construction work. W.P.(C)No.19878/24 7 2025:KER:27500 According to the Counsel, the attempt through the writ petition is to circumvent the mandatory provisions of the Act. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court adequate protection is being granted and the work is progressing smoothly. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that piling work does not fall within the ambit of building and other construction work under the Act. 7. Insofar as the petitioner has its own workers having requisite experience and expertise, there cannot be any compulsion to engage local workers belonging to the trade unions. Even if it is taken that the provisions of the Act are applicable and not complied with, that can only lead to penalties prescribed under the Act. Infraction of those provisions does not confer respondents 4 to 7 with any right to obstruct the work. At best, they can alert the competent authorities under the Act and seek appropriate action against the petitioner. W.P.(C)No.19878/24 8 2025:KER:27500 8. A perusal of the proceedings shows that an interim order was passed by this Court way back on 03.06.2024. Thereafter, on 11.06.2024 it was submitted on behalf of the party respondents that, they do not intend to cause any obstruction to the work being carried out by the petitioner. Taking the above factors into consideration, the writ petition is disposed of by making the interim order absolute and leaving it open for the party respondents to agitate their grievance before the appropriate forum. Sd/- V.G.ARUN, JUDGE sj W.P.(C)No.19878/24 9 2025:KER:27500 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19878/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER ISSUED BY SREE GOKULAM BUILDTECH DATED 11.04.2024 TO VIJAYA FOUNDATIONS PVT LTD CONTAINING THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR POLICE PROTECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SHO PANANAGAD POLICE STATION DATED 28.05.2024 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE PANANGAD POLICE STATION DATED 30.05.2024 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE SUBMISSION OF PETITION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30-05-2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UST GLOBAL DATED 22.05.2020 TO VIJAYA FOUNDATIONS PVT LTD