Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO.28403 OF 2021
PETITIONER :-
ABRAHAM SKARIA M.S., AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.SKARIA, PROPRIETOR, MASCO CEMENTS AND STEELS,
MASCO COMPLEX, NH 85, THONNIKKA, KOLENCHERY,
ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682 311
RESIDING AT MUTHIRAMATTATHIL, KARUKAPPILLY P.O.,
KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682 311.
BY ADVS.
V.J.JAMES
ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
K.A.HAZAN
M.M.FATHIMA JALEENA
K.P.WILSON
ARUN PAUL (KAPRASSERY)
RESPONDENTS :-
1
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER &
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, PUTHENCRUZ P.O.,
ERNKAULAM DIST., PIN - 682 308.
2
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ALUVA RURAL, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN- 683 101.
3
THE CHAIRMAN
KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
SUB COMMITTEE OFFICE, PUTHENCRUZ P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682 308.
4
P.V.KUTTAN, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.VAYARONI, POOL LEADER, POOL NO.20,
RESIDING AT PANDARAMOLEL, PALAKKAMATTOM,
KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682 311.
5
BABU P.P., AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.PATHROSE, POOL LEADER, POOL NO.21,
PANDALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM, KOLENCHERRY,
ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN- 682 311.
WP(C) NO.28403 OF 2021
-: 2 :-
6
THE SECRETARY
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION, INTUC,
KODIYAMPARAMBIL BUILDINGS, KOLENCHERY,
ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682 311.
7
THE SECRETARY
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS
UNION, CITU, AKG BHAVAN, KOLENCHERY,
ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682 311.
8
THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 683 542.
9
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB
SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE
SRI.A.A.GEETHA
SRI.T.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.28403 OF 2021
-: 3 :-
Registered head load workers have the exclusive right to carry out loading and unloading activities in Kerala.
Headnote:
HEADNOTE : HEAD LOAD WORKERS - REGISTRATION - PROTECTION - Petitioner, a shop owner, engaged registered head load workers for loading and unloading activities. Respondents obstructed the work. Petitioner sought police protection to carry out the activities with registered head load workers. Court held that the petitioner has the right to carry out the loading and unloading work in his premises with his statutorily registered employees. However, the loading and unloading activity cannot be carried out with unregistered workers. Police directed to carry out an inspection to ensure that the loading and unloading work is being carried out only by registered head load workers who are employed by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a shop owner, engaged registered head load workers for loading and unloading activities. The respondents obstructed the work. The petitioner sought police protection to carry out the activities with registered head load workers.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner has the right to carry out the loading and unloading work in his premises with his statutorily registered employees. However, the loading and unloading activity cannot be carried out with unregistered workers.
Issues: Whether the petitioner has the right to carry out the loading and unloading work in his premises with his statutorily registered employees?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1988, which provides for the registration of head load workers and the regulation of their employment.
Final Decision: The court directed the police to carry out an inspection to ensure that the loading and unloading work is being carried out only by registered head load workers who are employed by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12 th day of January, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :- “(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ, Order or Direction compelling Respondents 1 & 2 to remove the illegal and forcible obstructions from the part of 4th to 7th Respondents and their supporters, to the loading and unloading works in the establishment of the petitioner.
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ, Order or Direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to extend adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and 7 registered attached head load workers to carry out the loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a shop in Karukappilly, Kolencherry and has engaged ten registered head load workers for the purpose of loading and unloading in the said premises. It is stated that a branch was established at Thonnikka, about 4 kms away and that some of the registered head load workers have been transferred to the said shop. It is submitted that respondents 4 to 7 have obstructed the loading and unloading work conducted by the registered head load workers attached to the petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to police protection to carry out the loading and unloading activities with registered head load workers engaged by him.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 4 to 7. It is contended that the petitioner has expanded his business and would obviously be unable to carry out the loading and unloading works involved in both the premises with the registered head load workers allegedly engaged by him. It is submitted that the petitioner is, therefore, using unregistered workers for the loading and unloading work in his premises and that the respondents are, therefore, entitled to be engaged as and when work is available and the duly registered head load workers engaged by the petitioner are found insufficient to carry out the said work.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would also contend that the petitioner can carry out the activities only by engaging registered head load workers and that in case the registered head load workers, who are employed by the petitioner, are found to be insufficient, then the work has to be carried out by registered head load workers in the respective areas.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is carrying out the activity only with the registered head load workers employed by him and if there is requirement for any further workers, he will obtain registration for further employees as required by law and that he will not carry out any loading or unloading activity with unregistered workers.
Having considered the contentions advanced on all sides, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has the right to carry out the loading and unloading work in his premises with his statutorily registered employees. However, I make it clear that the loading and unloading activity cannot be carried out with unregistered workers. The 8th respondent shall carry out an inspection in the premises to ensure that the loading and unloading work is being carried out only by registered head load workers who are employed by the petitioner. In case the party respondents have any contention that the petitioner is engaging unregistered workers, they shall approach the 8th respondent with the details, which shall also be duly considered. In case the petitioner is employing registered head load workers for the works in question, he shall be permitted to carry out the activity and appropriate protection shall be granted for the same.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
