The central legal point established in the judgment is the illegality of claiming 'nokkukooli' and the need to curb such practices in the general public interest, as well as the legal provisions and penalties under the Unlawful Practices Act.

K.T. Sankaran, J.

The question of general importance arising in this Writ Petition is how to curb the unlawful activity of obstruction of loading and unloading activities in various commercial and industrial establishments in the State of Kerala on account of non payment of 'nokkukooli' claimed by the headload workers. It is a matter of common knowledge that 'nokkukooli' is in prevalence in the State of Kerala. It is also a matter of experience in the High Court that hundreds of Writ Petitions are being filed every year complaining of obstruction to loading and unloading activities as well as manhandling of employers on the ground that the employers were not willing to pay 'nokkukooli'.

2. In Jayaprakash v. Government of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 343), a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the menace of 'nokkukooli' and held thus :

"5. ..................................It is now common knowledge that some unions with muscle power demands "'nokkukooli'" (wages for watching the loading and unloading). These are all practices which would lead to anarchy and unrest in trades and industries. People have even begun to regard headload workers with fear because of the physical threat posed by them when such illegal demands are not acceded to by the employers and the public. This attitude of 'might is right' is what is reflected in these so called conventions or practices initiated and regularised with the help of labour officers who themselves may be obeying orders from political power centres................................................. The authorities under the Act, Rules and Scheme cannot recognise any sort of work other than what has been contemplated under the Act, Rules and Scheme in the name of some convention or practise existing in a particular area. We are also inclined to hold that such compulsory extraction of wages for such work not contemplated under the Act, Rules and Scheme would even amount to violation of the fundamental rights of the employers, besides affecting the right to work of the regular workers of the employers.

6...................................................................Therefore, we feel that it is high time that the authorities put an end to such practices which is beyond the scope of the Act, Rules and the Scheme for the welfare of the State itself."

3. The judgment in Jayaprakash v. Government of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 343) was passed on 1st December, 2006. It was directed in the judgment that it shall be applicable not only inter-partes but also to all cases before the authorities under the Headload Workers Act, Rules and Scheme which may arise as a general law on the subject and such authorities shall ensure that law as declared in the said decision is promptly applied by such authorities strictly in letter and spirit. However, by the Kerala Headload Workers (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 27 of 2008) the Kerala Loading and Unloading (Regulation of Wages and Restriction of unlawful Practices) Act, 2002 (Act 10 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Unlawful Practices Act') was repealed, which came into force on 6th August, 2008. It is true that in the judgment in Jayaprakash v. Government of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 343) it was not noticed that the Unlawful Practices Act was in existence. Still, in view of the positive directions in the judgment in Jayaprakash's case, one would expect a rigorous law to be in existence to curb the menace of 'nokkukooli' which is certainly an unlawful practise which came within the purview of the Unlawful Practices Act. Curiously enough, what came after the decision in Jayaprakash v. Government of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 343) was the repeal of the Unlawful Practices Act, 2002 by the Kerala Headload Workers (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 27 of 2008). Later in Paulson Zacharia v. Commissioner of Police (2014 (4) KLT 601) another Division Bench held that the claim for 'nokkukooli' was an affront to the Constitution of India by an unauthorised and illegal extract