Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49817
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
SAIL STOCKYARD WORKERS UNION (CITU) – Appellant
Versus
M/S.HADIYYA LOGISTICS PRIAVATE LIMITED – Respondent
W.A No. 1654 of 2021 | W.A No. 899 of 2022 | WP(C)NO.20667/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.K. MOHANAN, LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL, P.R.BANERJI
For the Respondents: P.M.ZIRAJ, PHILIP T.VARGHESE, S.KRISHNA MOORTHY
Engagement of headload workers is not a right when work is mechanized, asserting management's discretion to hire based on skill needs.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 - Sections 2(m) and 9A - Writ jurisdiction concerning police protection and headload workers - Petitioner's work in SAIL Stockyard is mechanized, and requires skilled workers; hence, unskilled headload workers cannot claim right to such work - Court confirmed directions of the learned Single Judge regarding police protection and engagement of registered headload workers for manual tasks (Para 20).
(B) The court established that if mechanical devices are used primarily in operations, headload workers cannot demand exclusive engagement rights under the Act (Paras 12-13).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed obstruction from headload workers seeking employment in mechanized loading/unloading work at SAIL Stockyard, thus requiring police protection against harassment and interference.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge held that mechanized work necessitates skilled labor, while manual jobs could be assigned to registered headload workers.
Issues: The principal issue was whether unskilled headload workers have the right to demand work that primarily involves mechanization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that where mechanized work is predominant, headload workers lack a right to claim that work, reinforcing that discretion of management encompasses engagement based on skill requirements.
Result: The appeals stand disposed of maintaining the directions for police protection and adjudication under the Headload Workers Act.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment arises from appeals against a common writ decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner seeks protection against headload workers obstructing mechanized operations. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 3. court highlights mechanized work requiring skilled labor as opposed to manual headload work. (Para 6 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
As both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, rendered in the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P(C) No.20667/2020, these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. 2. The appellants in W.A No.899/2022 are respondents 1 & 2 in the W.P(C) and R1 in the W.A is the writ petitioner and official respondents 2 to 6 in the W.A are official respondents 3 to 7 in the W.P(C), whereas W.A No.1654/2021 has been filed by a third party to the writ proceedings, who has filed the said appeal after securing third party leave. The said third party appellant in W.A No.1654/2021 claims to be a Workers' Union, affiliated to the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), which is the cause of the headload workers concerned, like the appellants in W.A No.899/2022.
3. Heard Sri.Philip T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A No.899/2022, Sri.Legith T.Kottakkal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A No.1654/2021, Sri.P.M.Ziraj, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents in these appeals (writ petitioner-Establishment), Sri.N.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Kerala Headload Workers' Welfare Board, appearing for the said party and Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents in these appeals.
4. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:
“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the third respondent to afford proper and adequate police protection to the life of directors of petitioner, its employees, vehicles properties and equipment from the threat of respondents one and two and their henchmen for handling the materials in the yard of SAIL at Irmbanam.
B. Direct the third respondent to take proper and adequate preventive action against respondents one and two and their henchmen from causing any untoward incident against the petitioner. AND
C. Such other writ, direction or order, which deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case.”
5. The case of the writ petitioner was that he has been assigned with the consignment handling works, as per a contract entered into between the petitioner concerned and the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), in respect of the works to be handled in a warehouse and stockyard of the SAIL at Irumbanam, Ernakulam. The broad case projected by the petitioner concerned is that the work of unloading and loading of the steel materials in the said warehouse cum stockyard of the SAIL is mechanised and there is no scope for manual loading and unloading, etc. The petitioner would state that respondents 1 & 2 in the W.P(C), who claimed to be headload workers, have demanded that they should be engaged as headload workers for the abovesaid works in question, which the petitioner could not concede and that they have obstructed the works of the petitioner concerned and at their instance, quite a few persons have trespassed into the premises of the petitioner, which has created serious problems in managing the work of the petitioner. Further that, he has demanded for police protection, which has not been acted upon by the police authorities concerned. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil), with the aforesaid prayers.
6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment on 11.12.2020, disposing of the instant W.P(C) No.20667/2020, with the finding that the work in the warehouse in question can be done only using heavy machinery and cranes and that, in the light of the sett
