Use of machines exempts quarry operators from engaging headload workers unless a functional workers' pool exists.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is running a quarry within the limits of Pullipadam Village of Nilambur Taluk in Malappuram District. According to the petitioner, the quarry is functioning with all licenses and permissions. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P2 issued by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Ext.P3 issued by the State Pollution Control Board, Ext.P4 issued by the Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), and Ext.P5 license issued by the Mampad Grama Panchayat. It is submitted that the petitioner has also entered into a quarrying lease with the Government of Kerala for a period of ten years, i.e., till 13.03.2034. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the fact that respondents 5 and 6, claiming to be headload workers in the area, are obstructing and causing nuisance to the petitioner while the petitioner is engaged in loading and unloading mined stone onto vehicles using mechanical devices, claiming that they are entitled to be engaged in connection with the same. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4^th respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit, wherein paragraph No.6 it is stated as follows:

“6.However, it is humbly submitted that no workers pools under this respondent has started functioning in the area. Furthermore, it is submitted that respondents 5 and 6 are not workers affiliated with the board or registered under the scheme.”

It is submitted that, though the area is a scheme covered area, in the absence of any pool, the petitioner is not required to engage any headload workers, even assuming that manual loading and unloading works are undertaken in the quarry. It is submitted that since the petitioner is using only machines for the purposes of loading and unloading, he is entitled to continue such work without engaging any headload workers.

2. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the area in question is a scheme covered area and respondents 5 and 6 are entitled to be engaged for loading and unloading work. It is also submitted that respondents 5 and 6 have entered into an arrangement with the petitioner for the purpose of being engaged in such work.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 that an arrangement has been entered into between respondents 5 and 6 and the petitioner is stoutly denied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 and in the light of the categorical statement in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent that there is no functional pool in the area, I am of the view that this writ petition is to be allowed. Moreover, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is using only machines for loading and unloading work. It is settled law that, where machines are used for loading and unloading work, even if there were a functional pool in the area, the pool workers may not be entitled to claim engagement for the purposes of loading and unloading work.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the

2^nd respondent is directed to ensure that respondents 5 and 6 do not cause any obstruction to the work of the petitioner. If the petitioner faces any obstruction from respondents 5 and 6, he shall bring the same to the notice of the 2nd respondent by filing a written complaint, and in such an event, the 2^nd respondent shall provide necessary protection to the petitioner to carry on his work without any obstruction from res