IMPORTANT POINT
Employers must engage registered headload workers with requisite skills for loading and unloading tasks in scheme-covered areas, as per the Kerala Headload Workers Act.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. Arun, J.

The petitioner firm has entered into an agreement for carrying out the logistic work of M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., an infrastructure provider in the telecommunication sector. As per the agreement, the petitioner has to undertake the storage and transportation of sensitive electronic panels, sophisticated electronic goods, diesel generators, steel items and allied equipment. For carrying out these activities, the petitioner has constructed a warehouse at Malayidamthuruth in Kizhakkambalam. The Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (‘the Scheme’ for short) is made applicable to the area in which the warehouse is situated. The petitioner alleges that the registered headload workers in the area are obstructing the loading and unloading activity carried out in the warehouse. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective Police protection to the petitioner and its workers for carrying out loading activity in the warehouse and for running the logistic business without any threat, hindrance or obstruction from the members of the 5th and 6th respondent unions.

2. Heard, Sr. Adv. A.V. Thomas appearing for the petitioner, instructed by Adv. Baby Kuriakose, Advs. P.K. Ibrahim, K.S. Arun Kumar, P. Sathisan for respondents 7 to 9 respectively, and Adv. Rekha C. Nair, the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the goods loaded and unloaded at the warehouse are sensitive and sophisticated materials like electronic panels, diesel generators and allied items. Any mishandling by unskilled persons will damage the articles and cause loss to the petitioner. The articles are therefore to be loaded and unloaded by specially trained workers. The other items like diesel generator sets and steel girders are loaded and unloaded using cranes and forklifts. In such circumstances, the demand that the registered headload workers should be engaged for carrying out the activity, is untenable.

4. In support of the contention that even in a scheme covered area, registered headload workers need not be engaged for loading and unloading of sophisticated and delicate articles or those done with the aid of machinery, reference is made to the definition of ‘headload worker’ in Section 2(m) and the exemption in Section 9A of the Act. To further buttress the argument, reliance is placed on the decisions in Safa System & Solutions v. Station House Officer, Palarivattom and Others [(2018) 3 KHC 311], Balakrishnan A v. Circle Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Alappuzha and Others [(2020) 6 KHC 701] and Krishna Kumar and Others v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha and Others [(2021) 5 KHC 717].

5. Learned Counsel for the 7th respondent submitted that the writ petition was filed even before the warehouse was constructed. Hence, the allegation that the activities were obstructed by the registered headload workers is patently false. As a matter of fact, petitioner had engaged the registered headload workers during construction of the warehouse building and now that the unit has became functional, the petitioner wants to carry out the activities with workers of its choice. The contention that only trained workers can carry out the loading activities is liable to be discarded, since applications have been filed by the petitioner for getting its own workers registered under the Headload Workers Rules, 1981. Moreover, the registered headload workers of the area are having sufficient experience in handling electrical and electronic equipments, generator sets and steel girders, evidenced by Ext.R7(A) letter. It is contended that, Indus Towers Ltd. being the principal employer, the petitioner has no locusstandi to file the writ petition. Moreover, Ext.P13 agreement executed between the parties has no legal validity in view of Section 39 of the Act.

6. Learned Counsel for the 8th respondent submitted that a complaint was