Registered workers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act must be recognized for loading and unloading work when duly registered, even within the confines of a union scheme.

JUDGMENT

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

The writ petitioner is in appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge which declined the prayer for police protection to carry out the work of loading and unloading in the appellants establishment, by workers registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules 1981 (for brevity, the Rules 1981). The appellant before the learned Single Judge contended that he has three registered workers under Rule 26A, as seen from Exts.P2 to P4, who were sufficient to carry out the loading and unloading work in their establishment. The appellant also relied on the judgment at Ext.P5, of a Division Bench of this Court. The respondent Unions appeared before the learned Single Judge and claimed that the area is covered by a Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1983, and that the workers in the pool constituted under the Scheme has an exclusive claim and priority to the work carried on in the scheme covered area. It was also pointed out that Ext.R2A settlement entered into between the 2nd respondent Union and the Merchant's Association provides for employment of the pool workers for specific work and an individual worker or an employer cannot seek a right of his own, which is in divergence to the terms of the agreement. It was also argued that the registration granted under Rule 26A by the Assistant Labor Officer is challenged in two appeals before the District Labor Officer, the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Headload Workers Act , 1978;

by both parties.

2. The learned Single Judge noticed Ext.R2A agreement, which according to the learned Single Judge, is not disputed by the petitioner. It was also observed; neither is a contention raised that they are not bound by the said agreement. Finding that the contention raised by the petitioner is only with respect to the right to carry on the loading and unloading work by their own registered workers, it was noticed that the 2nd respondent has no dispute with respect to the work carried on by the registered workers except those to be conceded to them as per Ext.R2A settlement. The claim of the 2nd respondent was only confined to unloading of materials coming to the premises which according to them was specifically allotted to the Union by a bipartite settlement which has also fixed the wages payable. The learned Single Judge refused to grant the prayer sought and left the parties to agitate their cause before the Appellate Authority.

3. Before us, Sri. Biju Abraham reiterated the contentions in accordance with his pleadings and asserted the appellant’s right, flowing from the Act and Rules, as judicially recognized, especially by Ext.P5 judgment. Sri. T.C. Krishna appearing for the Union however points out that the order in Ext.R2B specifically directs the arrangement as per Ext.R2A settlement to be continued. The registration under Rule 26A does not confer the registered head load workers with any better right than that available under Ext.R2A. It is asserted that since both parties are in appeal from the order at Ext.R2B; which the appellant failed to produce before the learned Single Judge, it is best in the scheme of things that there is no interference caused to the impugned judgment and the parties left to agitate their cause before the Appellate Authority.

4. The appellant does not dispute Ext.R2A agreement entered in to between the Merchant's Association, of which he is a member, and the Union of head load workers attached to the pool constituted under the Scheme. The agreement also specifically speaks about the right of the 2nd respondent Union to unload the goods coming to the establishments while the loading works could be carried out by any person engaged by the owner of the establishment (clause 11). However, this does not restrict the establishment from having their own registered employees who can carry out the entire loading and unloading work of the establishment. It is judicially rec