Statutory employment disputes must be adjudicated by designated authorities under the Kerala Headload Workers Act after preliminary assessment of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in wholesale distribution business in a shop situated within the limits of the Manjeri Municipality. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection on the allegation that respondent No.6, claiming to represent pool workers in the area, is claiming that the pool workers are entitled to be engaged for loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that loading and unloading work in his establishment is incidental and intermittent and that the petitioner has permanent workers, who are loading and unloading goods at the shop of the petitioner. It is stated in the writ petition that the claim for registration of permanent workers of the petitioner under Rule 26 of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (in short ‘the Rules’) is pending consideration before the Assistant Labour Officer. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to carry on with his work without any obstruction from the 6^th respondent or his men and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would submit that the area in question is a scheme covered area. It is submitted that this court by the interim order dated 19.03.2025 had considered the contention of the petitioner that the loading and unloading work at the establishment of the petitioner is intermittent and incidental and had directed that the matter be adjudicated by the 4^th respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner filed W.A.No.625/2025 challenging the order dated 19.03.2025. It is submitted that the Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal filed by the petitioner on 23.06.2025 finding essentially that before seeking police protection, the dispute must be decided by the competent authority. It is submitted that the Division Bench also observed that orders of police protection cannot be granted as a matter of routine. It is submitted that a reading of the judgment of the Division Bench will show that it was the case of the petitioner before the Division Bench that the matter has to be adjudicated not by the 4^th respondent but by the competent authority under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (in short ‘the Act’). It is submitted that taking note of this submission the Division Bench refused to interfere with the interim order and directed that the petitioner may approach this Court for modification of the order.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by order dated 24.05.2025, the Assistant Labour Officer, Malappuram has rejected the application filed by employees of the petitioner for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. It is submitted that a reading of the order of the Assistant Labour Officer will itself indicate that the work of loading and unloading in the establishment of the petitioner is only incidental and there is no regular work of loading and unloading of goods. In other words, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner need not employ pool workers for loading and unloading and workers of the petitioner are also not required to take out registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. It is further submitted that when the contention of the petitioner is that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the establishment of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be required to approach the authority under Section 21 of the Act for adjudication of disputes. It is submitted that the au