Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, V.G.ARUN, JJ.
Jerin.T.Alias, S/o. T.V Alias and Ors - Appellant
Versus
The Chief Executive Officer Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board, S R M Road, Ernakulam, Kochi and Ors - Respondent
WA.No.930 of 2019 & WP(C).No.11358 of 2019(T)
Decided On : 20-01-2020
Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983- “the pooling of head load workers on political basis is the only reason for the disputes”, an equitable distribution of work was made by directing creation of three Pools of equal strength from the different workers available without considering the political and party affiliations of the head load workers. It was also directed that if any worker refuses to work or obstructs the work of willing workers, appropriate disciplinary action under Para 26A shall be initiated.
Statement of facts:
The essential question projected in the appeal is of means of livelihood, which can only be eked out if there is sufficient work available to the head load workers, who are the contesting parties. Three Pools of workers constituted under the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 have agitated the cause for a number of years without a final resolution. The judgment in appeal affirmed the order of the Ernakulam District Committee of the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board which was challenged as Ext.P37 in one of writ petition from which the appeal arise. The writ petition seeks registration of all the establishments employing head load workers under the Scheme, in the area allotted to Pool 18. The Pool numbers are respectively 17, 27 and 18. The realignment of the area of work, and that now conceded to Pool 18 is under challenge by the other two Pools.
Finding of the court:
The three areas demarcated and as modified in the impugned order shall remain so demarcated until any change in the circumstances occurs. The areas shall be assigned Alphabets 'A', 'B' and 'C'.
(ii) The Pools constituted on political lines shall be invalid and there shall be three Pools assigned to the area as Pool Nos.17, 18 and 27.
(iii) From the 80 members now available in the three Pools, the Committee or an authorized officer, in the presence of the Pool members, shall by lots assign members to Pool Nos.17, 18 and 27. The Committee shall also assign a distinct uniform not of the political colour, to each of the Pools.
(iv) From out of the Pools, again by lots, a Pool leader shall be selected who shall be answerable to the Committee and can be changed at the discretion of the Committee, if any complaints arise.
(v) Each of the Pools shall be assigned one of the areas for two months and every two months the same shall be rotated between the Pools. At the first instance Pool No.17 shall be assigned area 'A', Pool No.18 assigned area 'B' and Pool No.27 assigned area 'C'. In the next two months, Pool No.17 shall be moved to area 'B', Pool No.18 to area 'C' and Pool No.27 to area 'A'. This rotation shall be continued in an year and the sequence changed in the next year so as to ensure that the very same months are not allotted to the pools in every year.
(vi) We also direct the establishments/employers in the different areas to be registered under the Act and Scheme so as to ensure strict compliance of Chapter VI of the Scheme.
(vii) If any worker refuses to work or obstructs the work of willing workers, appropriate disciplinary action under Para 26A shall be initiated
Result: Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The essential question projected in the appeal is of means of livelihood, which can only be eked out if there is sufficient work available to the head load workers, who are the contesting parties. Three Pools of workers constituted under the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (for short “the Scheme”) have agitated the cause for a number of years without a final resolution. The judgment in appeal affirmed the order of the Ernakulam District Committee of the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board which was challenged as Ext.P37 in one of writ petition from which the appeal arise. The writ petition seeks registration of all the establishments employing head load workers under the Scheme, in the area allotted to Pool 18. The Pool numbers are respectively 17, 27 and 18. The realignment of the area of work, and that now conceded to Pool 18 is under challenge by the other two Pools.
2. We have heard Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash for the appellants, (Pool Leaders of Pool No.'s 17 & 27) Sri.V.P.Prasad for the contesting respondent (Pool Leader of Pool No.18) and Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board.
3. Sri.Ajith Prakash raised the following contentions against Ext.P37 order as also the impugned judgment. It is argued that the allotment of area is one which was in vogue for the last 30 years and there was absolutely no reason why realignment had to be carried out. It is contended that the area conceded to each of the Pools cannot be realigned by the District Committee since it is one decided by the District Labour Officer [DLO] under the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981 (for short “the Rules of 1981). The District Committee lacks jurisdiction to realign the area assigned to the Pools constituted under the Scheme, though the tussle between the head load workers or rather the workers of the pools comes under the definition of 'dispute' under Section 2(h) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 (for short “the Act”). It is not a dispute which could be resolved under Section 18 of the Act of 1978, is the argument and lies under Section 21; which exercise is now over as confirmed by the appellate authority and remains undisturbed in a challenge raised before this Court.
4. Reliance is placed on Swathanthra Thozhilali Union v. Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board (2011 (3) KLT 527), a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, to argue that Section 18 cannot be invoked to alter the terms and conditions of the employment which was in existence for several years. The dispute is one which has to be considered by the DLO as found in Ext.P8, affirmed by the Appellate Authority in Ext.P9. The said orders have been upheld by this Court in a writ petition and appeal and there could be no realignment carried out by the District Committee based on the invocation of powers under Section 18.
5. It is also contended that there is no genuine grievance for Pool 18 which consists of only 8 workers while Pool 17 is comprised of 53 workers and Pool 27 of 19 workers. There is no material placed on record to evidence the income generated in the area earlier assigned to Pool 18. In fact there are arrangements by which the members of Pool 18 were entrusted with work available in various establishments/employers in the area other than under the aegis of the Board. Pool 18, which has very minimal number of workers, has been assigned areas from those earlier assigned to Pool 17. The realignment seriously hampers the livelihood of the workers in Pool 17 and 27. It is submitted that the Pools being constituted on political lines, pressure was exerted by the ruling party to which is aligned Pool 18 and its workers. In fact, the Chairman of the Committee had taken a decision to which the appellants have no objection. There is also no complaint filed pursuant to Ext. P10 & 11 judgments.
6. Sri.V.P.Prasad appearing for the contesting respondents submits that in fac
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
