The court affirmed that under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, workers cannot demand engagement for tasks using sophisticated machinery due to safety concerns.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the Manager of a private limited company known as ‘Lancet Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.’ According to the petitioner, the aforesaid company is engaged in the business of processing, toughening, and cutting large-scale float glass sourced from various parts of India. The petitioner states that the commercial operation of the unit, situated in the Meenad Development Area, Chathannur, Kollam district, was inaugurated by the Hon’ble Minister for Industries, Government of Kerala, on 07-01-2026. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3, representing headload workers in the area, have threatened the petitioner by demanding loading and unloading work in the factory.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Manager of the company in question. To a pointed question from the Court as to whether the writ petition could be maintained by the Manager, it is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is the Manager of the unit and he is facing the threats from respondents 2 and 3, it is open to the petitioner to maintain this writ petition. It is submitted that all loading and unloading work in the factory is done employing sophisticated machinery, including cranes and suction equipment, as the use of such equipment is necessary for the safe loading and unloading and handling of heavy float glass sheets measuring 12 Feet / 8 Feet and 16 Feet / 10 Feet and above. It is submitted that the very size of the float glass will indicate that such glass sheets cannot be unloaded manually and that any attempt to do so would involve grave safety hazards, including the risk of breakage and fatal accidents. It is submitted that, since sophisticated equipment is being used in the factory in question for the purposes of loading and unloading, the members of respondents 2 and 3 have no right to demand that they should be engaged for the purposes of loading and unloading work. It is submitted that the work engaged in by the petitioner is exempted in terms of the provisions contained in Section 9A of the Kerala Headload Workers Act , 1978. The learned counsel also places reliance on Ext.P3 training manual for the glass processing industry, to establish that the loading and unloading work can be carried out only with the use of sophisticated machinery.

3. Despite service of notice there is no appearance for respondents 2 and 3.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the additional 4^th respondent Board would submit that the area in question is a scheme covered area, and wherever manual loading and unloading is necessary, and in the absence of any workers of the petitioner having registration in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, the pool headload workers in the area have the right to engage in such loading and unloading work. However, the learned Standing Counsel does not seriously dispute that, where the loading and unloading work is being done using sophisticated machinery, the pool workers cannot insist that they should be manually permitted to engage in such loading and unloading work.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the additional 4^th respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Manager of the factory, which is engaged in the business of processing, toughening, and cutting of large scale float glass sourced from various parts of India. It is also the case of the petitioner that the float glass sheets measure 12 Feet / 8 Feet, 16 Feet / 10 Feet and above. It is evident that float glass sheets of such size cannot be