Employers with Rule 26A registered permanent headload workers entitled to perform loading/unloading without union interference.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is one of the partners of a firm known as 'M/s. Rubber Point' at Thodupuzha. The firm deals in bio manure, pesticides, fertilizers and other general items used for agricultural and plantation activities. It is stated that the firm has five branches, and the shop at Thodupuzha is the main branch. According to the petitioner, for the purposes of loading and unloading work, he has engaged his own workers and they have been issued with identity cards under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). Reference is made in this regard to Exts.P2 to P8. It is also submitted by the petitioner that, in respect of all additional work, the petitioner engages pool workers, and approximately Rs.91,000/- per month is being paid to the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board towards their wages. It is further submitted that respondents 4, 5 and 6 and their men are causing obstruction to the work of the petitioner contending that the loading and unloading work is being carried out by the petitioner’s permanent workers. It is also submitted that, despite being petitioned, the Police authorities have not taken any action against respondents 4, 5 and 6.

2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there are some issues between the petitioner and respondents 4, 5 and 6.

3. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondents 4, 5 and 6.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, I am of the opinion that, since the petitioner has his own workers holding valid registration under Rule 26A of the Rules, the petitioner is legally entitled to carry on loading and unloading activities using his registered workers. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that, wherever additional work is involved, he engages pool workers and pays approximately Rs.91,000/- per month to the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board towards wages of pool workers. In such circumstances, I see no ground upon which respondents 4, 5 and 6 can demand that work being carried out by the petitioner’s permanent workers should also be allotted to them.

5. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the

3^rd respondent is directed to ensure that the work of the petitioner at his Thodupuzha Depot is not obstructed in any manner by respondents 4, 5 and 6 or their men. It is made clear that the 3^rd respondent need take action in the matter only upon a written complaint being filed by the petitioner.