Back
2000 Supreme(Ker) 638
High Court of Kerala
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
Samyuktha Thozhilali Union - Appellant
Versus
Omana Johnson - Respondent
R.P. No. 570 of 2000
Decided On : 19-12-2000
The judgment established that unregistered headload workers cannot be employed for headload work in an area where the scheme is enforced, and special consideration for granting police protection does not apply to situations involving violation of the provisions of law.
Headnote:
Headload Workers - Employment Dispute - Kerala Headload Workers Act - R. 26-A - Full Bench decision on registration of headload workers - Special consideration for granting police protection - Interpretation of the provisions of the Act and Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a small scale industrial unit, sought police protection against obstruction by a union demanding employment replacing the permanent headload workers. The union argued that only registered headload workers can be employed for loading and unloading work in the area where the petitioner's industry is situated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the permanent workers employed by the petitioner for loading and unloading operations were not registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, and therefore, could not be employed for headload work in the area where the scheme was enforced. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument for special consideration based on previous judgments.
Issues: The issues revolved around the employment of unregistered headload workers, the demand for police protection, and the interpretation of the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Full Bench decision and previous judgments to establish that unregistered headload workers cannot be employed for headload work in an area where the scheme is enforced. It also clarified that special consideration for granting police protection does not apply to situations involving violation of the provisions of law.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
1. The Original Petition was disposed of on 29.11.2000. According to the petitioner in the review petition he had entered appearance on receiving notice in the Original Petition on 24.11.2000 by filing vakalath and counter affidavit. But he could not appear when the case was taken up and disposed of on 29.11.2000, as his name did not appear in the cause list. Therefore, the review petitioner did not have any opportunity. The judgment deprives the employment chances of the members of the review petitioner. the judgment was rendered without hearing the review petitioner. Therefore, it has to be reviewed.
2. I verified the records and found that though vakalath and counter affidavit have been filed by the review petitioner, the second respondent in the Original Petition on 24.11.2000, his appearance was not noted in the cause list thereby disabling the counsel to be present on 29.11.2000 when the case was heard and disposed of. Therefore, the review petition has to be allowed. Accordingly, the Original Petition was heard afresh.
3. The petitioner is a small scale industrial unit registered as per Ext. P1, manufacturing hollows bricks. As per the averment in para 2, there is lot of loading and unloading activities in the business concern of the petitioner. So, four persons have been "employed as permanent headload workers". therefore, the petitioner has got permanent workmen and they are being employed for the loading and unloading operations in the unit. The members of second respondent union are demanding employment replacing the permanent workmen. they are causing obstruction as the petitioner is unable to concede to their demand. Therefore, the petitioner seeks police protection to avert their obstruction.
4. It is contended by the second respondent that the industry of the petitioner is situated in an area where the Scheme framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act is enforced. In such circumstances, only registered headload workers alone can be employed for loading and unloading work in the establishment. Even if the establishment has its own permanent headload workers, that establishment cannot continue to employee such headload workers unless they have got registration under R. 26-A of the rules framed under the Act. The workers mentioned in the Original Petition do not have such registration. In such circumstances, even though they are permanent workers attached to the petitioners' establishment, for carrying out the loading and unloading work, they cannot be employed any more so long as the Scheme is enforced in the area.
5. It is the admitted case by the petitioner that the 4 workers mentioned in the Original Petition have no registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. It is submitted that the unit is registered as a Women's Industrial Unit and therefore 80% of the employees have to be women. that is why the petition is employing women workers and is unable to employ the workers of the locality represented by the second respondent. But this aspect has not been averred in the Original Petition. Moreover, the specific case in the Original Petition is that there is lot of loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner and for such work four permanent workers are engaged.
6. When it is admitted position that the alleged permanent workers employed by the petitioner for loading and unloading operation of the petitioner's unit are not registered workers, necessarily they would not be entitled to carry on headload work when the scheme is enforced in the area concerned. It is further admitted fact that the scheme is enforced in the area where the unit of the petitioner situates.
7. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police (1998 (2) KLT 732) considering the impact of registration as follows:
"What will be the consequence, if a headload workers does not get registered under R. 26A? If he is not a permanent employee attached to an e
