The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict implementation of the Kerala Headload Workers Act to address militant trade unionism and the illegal nature of demanding 'Nokku kooli' (Gawking charges). The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining a peaceful atmosphere in the realm of labor and employment.

ORDER :

1. I do not propose to dispose of this writ petition finally today because the issues projected in this case certainly travel beyond the specific factual circumstances involving the petitioner alone.

2. It is without doubt that Kerala has had a history of militant trade unionism and the reputation of such continues even today.

3. The unfortunate result is that it is not often that our State is considered as an investor friendly destination.

4. There have been changes over the years and many deleterious tendencies have been arrested; but still, as already said above, the afore reputation has not been fully erased.

5. A lot of contribution to this has come from violent actions of headload workers, who are registered under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. The past experience shows that the headload workers would approach a business concern or an industry and demand that they be engaged in the loading and unloading works and should they face any resistance, violence and intimidation could be the result.

6. Obviously, not many would like to face such a situation in life and this, tragically, has led to the blot in the reputation of the State, as one in which militant trade unionism still survives.

7. The irony of the situation is that the Headload Workers Act contains a specific scheme, by which a headload worker can seek employment; but it is not to approach the employer directly and seek it with force. As is conceded by Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board, if any employer illegally refuses to engage headload workers, the latter can approach the Board and seek redressal as per law.

8. However, as is also admitted at the Bar by the learned Government Pleader, this is not the manner in which normally headload workers or Unions ensure that they get employment. As we see from the numerous cases that come before this Court, they use force or unleash intimidation and thus force the employer to achieve to their demands.

9. This is precisely what is proscribed by the Headload Workers Act.

10. I have begun as above, since there can be little doubt that if the provisions of the Headload Workers Act are implemented properly, then the impression of Kerala having a militant trade unionism would vanish without much of a delay. This is because, in the event of any employer refusing to engage a headload worker, the consequences could not be violence but legal proceedings initiated before the Board, which will then lead to the statutory remedies under the Act.

11. Pertinently, the Government also affirms that they are against the concept of militant trade unionism and that the extortionist demands made euphemistically as “Nokkukooli” (Gawking Wages) are illegal and cannot be tolerated.

12. As is common knowledge, the Government has issued circulars banning the demand of “gawking wages”, but they do not deal with militant trade unionism, which is sometimes exhibited in cases where an employer rightly or wrongly refuses to engage a headload worker.

13. Axiomatically, while the unions maintain that they have not sought for any Gawking charges - which is to mean demand for money without being employed, obstructionist and violent acts to gain employment is made, ironically justifying their action on the statutory scheme under the Headload Workers Act.

14. As indited above, if any headload worker is denied legitimate engagement or employment, the remedy against the same is not violence but to approach the Board appropriately under the provisions of the Act.

15. To paraphrase, even assuming that an employer is illegally disallowing engagement to a headload worker, the latter or his Union cannot use force or intimidation against the said person or entity to seek employment, but they must approach the Board appropriately and seek redressal. This is inevitable since the Board is vested with sufficient powers under the Act to resolve such issues, including by proceeding against the emplo