The court affirmed that the classification of goods under specific employment regulations requires factual determination by the appropriate authority.

JUDGMENT

Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

The Appellant, the Original Petitioner before us, is a partnership firm which has entered into an agreement for logistic works with Respondent No. 9, which is in the business of installing Mobile Transmission Towers.

2. The nature of the work undertaken by the Appellant includes storage and transportation of electronic panels, and electronic goods and equipment, diesel generators, steel items and allied equipment used for the installation of the transmission towers. According to the Appellant, these are delicate and sophisticated goods. The Appellant has a warehouse at Malayidamthuruth, where the items are unloaded for storage and thereafter transported to the required project sites. According to the Appellant, the loading and unloading of the items is required to be handled carefully.

3. The Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme , 1983 (Scheme 1983, for short) has been made applicable to the area where the warehouse is situated. It is the case of the Appellant that when the goods transported by Respondent No. 9 reached the warehouse, the headload workers of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Unions created disturbance, which led to the Appellant filing a complaint before the District Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam (Rural), Respondent No. 1, for police protection. Appellant contends that since no steps were taken and the disturbance continued, it was required to file W.P.(C) No. 4739 of 2024, which has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 9 September 2024, directing the authorities under the Act 20 of 1980, Respondent No.8, to decide the dispute between the Petitioner and the Unions, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 21 of the Act 20 of 1980. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellant, the Original Petitioner, is before us.

4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S. Sreekumar along with Sri. Baby Kuriakose, learned counsel for the Appellant, Sri. K.P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. P.K. Ibrahim, learned counsel for Respondent No. 7, Smt. Raji, learned counsel for Respondent No. 8, and Sri. P. Sathisan, learned counsel for Respondent No. 9.

5. The Main contention of the Appellant is that the goods which are being handled in the said warehouse do not fall within the ambit of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981 (Rules 1981, for short) and the Scheme 1983 framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act , 1978 (Act 20 of 1980, for short).

6. Having heard the arguments and having gone through the impugned judgment, we find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the dispute needs to be decided by the authority as per the provisions of the concerned statute. The question as to whether the goods fall within the ambit of the Scheme and the Rules is factual, requiring an enquiry by examining the goods in question. The authority established under the Act is equipped to decide this question, and therefore, it is appropriate that the authority would decide it.

7. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the members of the Unions are creating difficulties in the way of smooth functioning of the warehouse, and even though the goods are not covered under the Scheme, the Appellant is forced to employ theheadloadworkers who have caused difficulties on site and that there was an interim order pending the writ petition, which may be continued till a decision is taken. The Respondent Unions oppose, contending that the interim order has expired some time back and does not continue as of today.

8. Considering that the authority would decide the issue, we are not inclined to grant any in