Back
2021 Supreme(Ker) 185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHAJI P.CHALY, J.
M.S.Asharaf, S/o. Said Mohamed - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Labour Commissioner Appellate Authority Under The Kerala Headload Workers Act, Office Of The Regional Joint Labour commissioner, Kakkanad, Ernakulam -682 030. - Respondent
WP(C).No.32094 of 2013(J)
Decided on : 19-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI, SMT.M.KABANI DINESH, SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K., SMT.T.V.SREEJA, SMT.SITHARA SHAMSUDEEN
For the Respondent: SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SRI.C.S. AJITH PRAKASH, SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO, SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, adv
Point of Law: Infrastructure laws - Headload workers under pool - Demarcated Junction - Deputy Commissioner - District Labour Officer has not ventured to identify the exact situation and to arrive at a finding in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1978, especially Section 21 thereto – Therefore there is no arbitrariness or any other legal infirmities, justifying interference of this Court in order, exercising power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when decision was taken by the statutory appellate authority after providing full opportunity to parties and deciphering various factual circumstances, including conducting field study to sort out the dispute finally .
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Headload Workers Act, 1978 - Section 21(7) - Order passed by Deputy Commissioner-Appellate Authority under Section 21(7) of Act, 1978 whereby boundaries of pool at Gamma and Amballoor Junctions were demarcated – Challenged - Main contention by petitioner is none of aspects put forth by the petitioner before Deputy Labour Commissioner was taken note of and order is discriminatory and arbitrary and is liable to be interfered with - So also, it is contended that issue with respect to dispute by and between pool was settled by District Labour Officer as per order after reassessing area of work of headload workers under pools 35 - Whether any manner of interference is warranted to order passed by Deputy Commissioner, who is appellate authority under Section 21(7) of Act, 1978.
Finding of the court: Deputy Labour Commissioner, who is appellate authority, has conducted a field survey and identified exact dispute that was pending by and between workers of pools - It is quite clear and evident from order that findings are rendered by appellate authority taking into account various factual circumstances, especially the statement of Deputy Labour Officer, who has visited sites in question and has reported factual circumstances available on field - Merely because some work in area belonging to workers of pool was carried out by workers of pool, that will not enure to benefit of workers of pool, since from order passed by District Labour Officer itself, it is clear that it was on basis of some agreement and temporary arrangements work was carried out in that manner, but it shall not stand in way of authority while exercising power under Act, 1978, when it was called upon to decide an actual dispute pending by and between te workers of pools.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P6 order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-Appellate Authority, Ernakulam under Section 21(7) of the Headload Workers Act, 1978 (‘Act, 1978 for brevity), whereby the boundaries of pool Nos. 31 and 35 situated near Kanjiramattom at Gamma Junction and the junction at Amballoor, Ernakulam were demarcated.
2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner is a headload worker and is a leader of Pool No. 35, which is operating in Kanjiramattom locality. There is yet another pool No. 31 in the same locality, which according to the petitioner, is within the area covered by Pool No. 35, of which the 5th respondent namely S.K. Surendran is the pool leader, in order to carry on the unloading work of construction materials brought to the construction sites. According to the petitioner, there was no quarrel or dispute between the workers of pool Nos. 31 and 35 as the work of the pools were clearly demarcated. However, on 11.05.2013, the workers of pool No. 31, under the leadership of the 5th respondent, physically obstructed the unloading work of the tiles in the godown of NSS Building, where the workers of pool No. 35 are entitled to work.
3. Thereupon, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Officer, who convened conciliation conferences on 11.06.2013 and 17.06.2013. However, no settlement could be arrived at and therefore, a failure report was sent to the District Labour Officer, who did not take any measures to proceed with the matter and thereupon, a direction was secured by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16977 of 2013 to pass orders on the pending proceedings. Accordingly, the District Labour Officer-second respondent, has passed Ext. P1 order, which according to the petitioner, clearly demarcated the area allotted to pool Nos. 31 and 35. Aggrieved by Ext. P1 order of the District Labour Officer, 5th respondent, who is the leader of pool No. 31, approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the first respondent, and according to the petitioner, even before preferring an appeal, a stay of Ext. P1 was granted by the Deputy Commissioner.
4. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 25736 of 2013, which was disposed of as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 05.11.2013 directing the appellate authority to dispose of Ext. P2 appeal pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and further directed that till a decision is taken, Ext. P1 order passed by the District Labour Officer would be in force for allotment of work.
5. The main contention advanced by the petitioner is that none of the aspects put forth by the petitioner before the Deputy Labour Commissioner was taken note of and therefore, Ext. P6 order is discriminatory and arbitrary and is liable to be interfered with. So also, it is contended that the issue with respect to the dispute by and between pool Nos. 31 and 35 was settled by the District Labour Officer as per Ext. P1 order dated 24.09.2013 after reassessing the area of work of the headload workers under pool Nos. 31 and 35.
6. Therefore it is contented that, the appellate authority has interfered with the said order without understanding the true factual circumstances and taking into account the documents produced by the petitioner at the time of hearing to prove that the headload workers of pool No. 35 have been doing loading and unloading work in the Keecheri Service Co-operative Bank No. 668, Galaxy Tiles, ARD 212, Vembanad Rubbers, Godown of Warehousing Corporation etc.
7. In that view of the matter, according to the petitioner , the order passed by the appellate authority is against the factual circumstances available on record and the said aspect was never disputed by the 5th respondent . Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has also produced Ext. P5 series of documents to show that headload works of the above establishment have been carried out by pool No. 35 and that
