Work allocation cannot be based on union affiliation according to established legal standards.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a headload worker. According to the petitioner, he is affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC). The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that, though the petitioner and the other headload workers belonging to the INTUC were engaged in headload work in and around the Wadakkancherry bus stand, the 5^th respondent and others owing allegiance to the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) threatened persons who had provided work to the petitioner and others belonging to the INTUC. It is submitted that in order to resolve the disputes, complaints were filed before the competent authorities, and a conciliation was attempted. It is stated that the conciliation failed, and thereafter the 2^nd respondent, through Ext.P4 order, determined that only members of the CITU shall be permitted to work in the disputed area. It is submitted that the petitioner and other members of the INTUC were also barred from entering and seeking work in the area allotted to the members of the CITU. It is submitted that this decision of the 2^nd respondent cannot be sustained in the light of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Jerin T. Alias and Another v. CEO, Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board and Others, 2020 (1) KHC 564 , wherein this Court held that there cannot be allotment of work on the basis of union affiliation, and that distribution of work also cannot be based on union affiliation. It is submitted that though the petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P4 order, the Appellate Authority, without considering any contention, has rejected the appeal through Ext.P9 order.

2. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent would vehemently contend that there is absolutely no illegality in Ext.P4 order of the 2^nd respondent and Ext.P9 order of the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that going by the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’), it is competent for the authorities to allot work. It is submitted that for many years there has been a work arrangement whereby the 5^th respondent’s union was working in the disputed area to the exclusion of the workers belonging to INTUC, and this arrangement was continuing for a long time. It is submitted that in the areas allotted to the workers owing affiliation to the INTUC, the 5th respondent’s union was prevented from working. It is submitted that it was a mutual arrangement that had been followed for a large number of years, and the dispute arose when the petitioner attempted to disturb the status quo.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent, I am of the opinion that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Jerin T. Alias (supra), there cannot be allotment of work on the basis of union affiliation. The Division Bench in Jerin T. Alias (supra) held as follows:

“21. Whatever the justification of proper co-ordination possible, only if the Pools are constituted on political lines, it is not one sanctioned under the Act. This very same Division Bench, noticing the mounting litigation between the employees under the Scheme inMakkar C.M. and Others v. State of Keralaand Others (2019 (4) KHC 1 [DB]) observed so:

“While considering the issues involved in these writ petitions, we were reminded of the initial clarion call of the workers movement across the world, which exhorted the workers to u