Point of Law: Mobile phones and electronic equipments/appliances/ devices are “delicate and sophisticated” within the umbra of the Explanation to Section 2(m) of the Act, it would not require this Court to consider the impact of Section 2(j) thereof, in the factual scenario of this case, except with respect to other articles, which are not “delicate.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. Even after more than four decades, the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) continues to present several issues and vicissitudes in its operation and impact across our State.

2. This Statute was certainly a landmark one when it was brought into force in the year 1980, with the ever so laudable objective of regulating the employment of a hitherto unorganized section of poor and exploited Working Class, who survive exclusively on their physical abilities and brawn. The Act was intended to make provision for the “Headload Workers” and for settlement of disputes relating to their employment or non-employment, as the case may be.

3. The Act certainly did its job well, but with the march of time and technological advances, vexed issues have begun to emerge as to the role of the “Headload Workers” and their contribution, particularly with respect to articles and consignments which are would require specialised care in its handling, including mechanised means.

4. In fact, recognizing the above, the Act was amended in the year 2008, reshaping Section 2(m) thereof, which defines a “Headload Worker” to now mean one who is engaged for loading and unloading or carrying on head or person or in a trolley, any article or articles, excluding “delicate and sophisticated articles.” An explanation was thereafter added to the Section to define “delicate” or “sophisticated article” to mean those which require to be handled by trained or skilled persons.

5. The ironical fallout to this has been that businesses and Headload workers are often at war over loading and unloading of articles, which the former claims to be “delicate” or “sophisticated” thus capable of being handled only by their own skilled and trained employees.

6. These cases are among the ones above and in question here are electronic devices appliances and equipments.

7. The pivotally germane and perhaps the singular issue in these cases is whether the articles being dealt with, sold or stored by the petitioners are “fragile” or “delicate and sophisticated” thus taking it out of the purlieus of Section 2(m) of the Act, while they are loaded and unloaded.

8. The factual factors presented in these cases, and the reliefs sought being similar, if not identical in its nature and tenor, I have heard them together and thus deserve to be disposed of jointly, which I do through this judgment.

9. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 28462 of 2020 is stated to be engaged in the sale of “televisions, microwave ovens, food processors, smart toasters, air fryers, refrigerators of various kinds, coffee makers, power blenders, electronic kitchen ranges, dishwashers, washing machines, water purifiers, air conditioners, mixies etc.” (sic). He asserts that these articles are very “delicate and sophisticated” thus requiring great care and specialised handling and therefore, that he has engaged trained and skilled permanent workers on his Rolls, for its loading and unloading.

10. The petitioner alleges that, in spite of the fact that the afore articles are incapable of being handled by unskilled and untrained hands, various persons - claiming to be Headload Workers as defined under the Act - started obstructing his permanent workers in another of his Establishment last year, which forced him to approach this Court and to obtain Ext.P1 judgment in W.P. (C) No. 14656 of 2020, wherein, a learned judge of this Court, relying on various judgments, including Safa System and Solutions vs. Station House Officer, Palarivattom and Others, 2018 (3) KLT 9, unambiguously declared that the aforementioned articles are “delicate and sophisticated” and resultantly that the “Headload workers” under the Act cannot claim statutory right to load and unload them.

11. The petitioner says that, however, in spite of the afore affirmative jural declarations, the party respondents are unleashing fear on his permanent employees, threatening them with violence if they en