Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Shaik Atheek – Petitioner
Versus
Station House Officer, Anchal Police Station, Kollam And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.33378 OF 2019(V)
Decided On : 07-01-2020
For the Petitioner: Sri.T.A.Prakash, Sri.M.Ziyad, Advs.
For the Respondent: Sri.P.P. Thajudheen, SPL GP, Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
The unorganized sector of headload workers in the State have been extended a sort of protection by providing for regularity of their work-Clause 6(1) of the Scheme provides that no headload worker who is not a registered headload worker under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies from the date of commencement of the functional operation of the Scheme. But, as noted, the Act and the Scheme apply only to the establishments specified in the Schedule to the Act. In other words, once the functional operation of the Scheme is extended to an area, the loading and unloading works in the establishments specified in the Act can be carried out only by engaging workers registered under the Act.
Headnote:
Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983-The Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978-If there are no registered workers to carry out the loading and unloading works in such establishments, the works in the said establishments are to be carried out by engaging workers registered under the Scheme. But, that does not mean that once the functional operation of the Scheme is extended to an area, the workers registered under the Scheme shall be engaged for every loading and unloading activities in the area.
Statement of facts:
The petitioner is a person undertaking garden works on contract basis. He belongs to Kilimanoor in Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner has been engaged by a person for a garden work in Kollam District. Pursuant to the said engagement, on 4.12.2019, the petitioner has brought a lorry load of garden materials to the work site. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondents 5 to 8 have obstructed the unloading work of the said materials on the ground that the work site is situated in an area to which the functional operation of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 is extended and that, being workers registered under the Scheme, they have the exclusive right to carry out the loading and unloading works in the area. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the activities of the petitioner do not fall under the Act and the Scheme; that he has workers to attend all the works including the loading and unloading of materials into and out of the vehicles and that he is, therefore, entitled to engage his workers to carry out the works including loading and unloading works in his work site-Seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.
Finding of the court:
The work site of the petitioner can never be construed as an establishment specified in the Act. Further, the loading and unloading works undertaken by the petitioner and similarly placed persons which are incidental to the work undertaken by them on contract basis, to be performed at the work site of their principal can be regarded only as works of casual nature which are not intended to be covered at all in terms of Act, as clarified by this Court in Venkatraman- The first respondent is directed to afford protection to the petitioner for carrying out the loading and unloading works in connection with the garden work undertaken by him in the premises of his principal by engaging workers of his choice.
Result: Allowed
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is a person undertaking garden works on contract basis. He belongs to Kilimanoor in Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner has been engaged by a person for a garden work in Kollam District. Pursuant to the said engagement, on 4.12.2019, the petitioner has brought a lorry load of garden materials to the work site. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondents 5 to 8 have obstructed the unloading work of the said materials on the ground that the work site is situated in an area to which the functional operation of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (the Scheme) framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (the Act) is extended and that, being workers registered under the Scheme, they have the exclusive right to carry out the loading and unloading works in the area. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the activities of the petitioner do not fall under the Act and the Scheme; that he has workers to attend all the works including the loading and unloading of materials into and out of the vehicles and that he is, therefore, entitled to engage his workers to carry out the works including loading and unloading works in his work site. According to the petitioner, the obstruction caused by respondents 5 to 8 is unlawful and he is, therefore, entitled to police aid for carrying out the loading and unloading works in his work site referred to in the writ petition. It is alleged that police is not extending police aid despite requests. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.
2. On 10.12.2019, when the matter was taken up after notice, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the materials brought to the work site on 04.12.2019 were somehow unloaded and if police aid is not extended, the petitioner may not be able to bring further materials to the site to carry out the work. In the light of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (the Board) were heard in the matter.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted, on behalf of the Board and also on behalf of the workers registered under the Scheme, that in the light of the provisions contained in the Scheme, in so far as the work site of the petitioner is situated in an area to which the functional operation of the Scheme is extended, the petitioner is bound to engage registered workers for carrying out the loading and unloading works at the site, and if he does not have registered workers to carry out the loading and unloading works, he is bound to engage workers registered under the Scheme for carrying out the loading and unloading works.
4. In the light of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, the short question falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to carry out the loading and unloading works in his work site which is situated in an area to which the functional operation of the Scheme is extended, by engaging workers of his choice.
5. It is seen that the Act is one that has been enacted to regulate the employment of the headload workers in the establishments specified therein and to make provisions for their welfare, for settlement of disputes in respect of their employment or non-employment and for matters connected therewith. The establishments specified in the Schedule to the Act are the following;
“1. Iron and steel markets or shops.
2. Cloth and cotton markets or shops.
3. Grocery markets or shops.
4. Railway yards and goods sheds.
5. Establishments employing workers for loading or unloading of goods and other operations incidental and connected thereto.
6. Vegetable markets including onions and potatoes markets.
7. Establishments employing workers for loading, unloading and carryin
