Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
HASHIM – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(C) 18340/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW, SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN, SHRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN, SHRI.PAUL BABY, SMT.SWATHY A.P., SMT.FOUSIYA R, SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
The change of trade union membership does not affect a registered headload worker's right to work and warrants police protection if obstructed.
Headnote:The petitioner, a headload worker, possesses a Rule 26A(3) identity card issued under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, asserting his right to engage in headload work despite opposition from prior union members. The court emphasized that a change in union membership does not nullify the worker's registration or entitlement to work, corroborating this with precedents. In addressing jurisdictional concerns, the court ruled that police protection must be provided to the petitioner for lawful work endeavors pending further adjudication of registration disputes.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. a registered headload worker has unimpeded rights to work despite union disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. disputed union membership does not equate to loss of registration status. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial enforcement for police protection of workers is mandatory pending resolution of disputes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a headload worker and holds Rule 26A(3) identity card issued under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules . The petitioner states that he was doing headload works connected with loading and cutting rubber trees. When the petitioner resigned from the 4th respondent- Trade Union and joined the 5th respondent-Union, the members of the 4th respondent are not permitting the petitioner to do headload and associated works stating that they have submitted a complaint to the 3rd respondent-ALO to cancel the registration of the petitioner.
2. As the obstruction continued, the petitioner requested respondents 1 to 3 to give police protection in order to engage in his avocation peacefully. Respondents 1 to 3 did not give any protection. The 3rd respondent-ALO conducted a conciliation meeting on 14.05.2025. Before the ALO, the 3rd respondent stated that they have given an application to cancel the registration of the petitioner. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent stopped the conciliation proceedings.
3. The petitioner has every right to work as a headload worker as long as he has a subsisting registration. Change of membership of a trade union cannot affect registration of a headload worker or his right to do headload work. The petitioner is therefore entitled to police protection.
4. The 4th respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 4th respondent stated that there are 20 registered headload workers in the Peringamala Guard Station area. The petitioner was employed as NMR worker in Palod Forest Range during the period from January, 2020 to March, 2023. The petitioner left that employment also for joining some other work. The petitioner did not work as a headload worker. In January, 2025, he again rejoined as NMR Watcher. He continued in the roll till March, 2025. The petitioner has approached this Court suppressing his employment under the Forest Department. The petitioner has obtained Rule 26A registration by fraud and misrepresentation.
5. The 4th respondent therefore invoked Section 21 and raised a dispute against the registration of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent held conciliation meetings. At this stage, the petitioner raised Ext.P2 dispute alleging denial of employment by the 4th respondent. Relying on the judgment of this Court in M/s. Goline Networks Private Limited v. State of Kerala and others (W.A. No.261/2025), the counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that under the garb of seeking police protection, factual adujudication regarding the rights and liabilities of the parties cannot be entertained and if there is a serious law and order issue that causes imminent threat of bodily injury, that the police can be directed to maintain law and order. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
7. The petitioner has been issued with Ext.P1 identity card under Rule 26A(3) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules . The petitioner is therefore entitled to work as headload worker. The allegation is that the 4th respondent and persons under him are obstructing and preventing the petitioner from doing headload work. The 4th respondent would submit that the petitioner has been working under the Forest Department for the period from January, 2020 to March, 2023 as NMR Watcher. The petitioner again rejoined as NMR Watcher in January, 2025 and was in the roll till March, 2025. The 4th respondent has raised an industrial dispute challenging the issuance o
