Private establishments with their own permanent workers are not bound by the Kerala Headload Workers Act and are entitled to engage their own workers for loading and unloading work.

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

These Original Petitions have been referred to a Division Bench as an important question of law of general application is involved in these matters.

2. The petitioners in O.P. No. 11682/96 is conducting a saw mill and doing business in timber at Maradi Village in Muvattupuzha. According to the petitioner, he started the saw mill business in 1994 with nine permanent workers. They have been engaged for loading and unloading work in the saw mill. The fourth respondent is a trade union and according to the petitioner, the members of this trade union are obstructing the loading and unloading work of the petitioner. The members of the Union prevent the petitioner's workers from doing loading and unloading work. The petitioner submitted a representation to the police authorities, but was of no avail. Therefore, petitioner prays that the respondents 1 to 3 may be directed to see that the work in the saw mill of the petitioner be allowed to be handled by the petitioner's workers and the members of the fourth respondent - union be prevented from interfering with the loading and unloading work in the saw mill. Petitioners has sought for police protection.

3. In this Original Petition the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner does not have 9 permanent workers. All the loading and unloading work in the saw mill is being done by the members of the fourth respondent union who are 18 in number. The petitioner started the mill in 1994 and previously the mill was under the management of another person and the business was carried on in the name and style as "M/s. Jaya Timbers". The members of the fourth respondent - Union had never obstructed the loading and unloading work. It is further contended that the petitioner's mill is situated in an area to which the provision of the Scheme framed under S.13 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act is made applicable. The Scheme provides for pooling of-headload workers. There are other establishments also in that area and loading and unloading work in these establishments is also being done by the members of the fourth respondent - Union. The members of the fourth respondent- Union are issued with identity cards and the wages arc also fixed depending on the cubic feet. When a dispute arose, petitioner was called for a conciliation conference. But he refused to attend the meeting.

4. The petitioner in O.P No. 11780/96 is a dealer in raw skin and he is having business in the name and style "the Skin Emporium" in Thrissur. This business was originally started by the petitioner's father about 50 years ago. The petitioner purchases raw skin from local slaughter houses and they are stacked and preserved after mixing it with salt to avoid decay. The petitioner has his own workmen for loading and unloading the raw skin and bags of salt. Petitioner's workers used to do the loading and unloading work. Later the members of the head load workers union came for loading and unloading of articles outside the establishment. Petitioner used to make remittances with the Headload Workers Welfare Fund for the work done by the members of the union. The petitioner used to keep the raw skin only for a few days and they have to be sent to other places at the earliest. The handling of raw skin requires skill and expertise. In June 1996 some of the headload workers abstained from work on account of strike. This adversely affected the petitioner's business. Petitioner did not take the risk of engaging his own workers for doing the loading and unloading work. Petitioner sent a representation to the Chairman of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board stating that he may be permitted to engage his own workers. The members of the head load workers union started demanding higher wages. The members of the union took a hostile attitude and the bags of salt were unloaded at a place which was not decided by the petitioner. In one instance the head load workers refused to loa