Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., J
T. H. Muhammed – Appellant
Versus
Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10833 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Venugopal, Srilakshmi T.S.
For the Respondents: S. Krishnamoorthy, V. K. Sunil
Statutory authorities are mandated to address and resolve complaints regarding the unauthorized encroachment and allocation of work areas among registered headload workers as per the provisions of the welfare scheme.
Headnote:The petitioners, registered headload workers, approached the court alleging that other workers were encroaching upon their allotted work areas in violation of Rule 8 of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983. They sought intervention against the inaction of statutory authorities despite previous findings in their favor in internal committee meetings. The core issue was whether the statutory authorities had fulfilled their obligation to prevent unauthorized encroachment and to address the grievances formally submitted by the petitioners. The court observed that the existence of a prior internal finding (Ext.P7) supported the petitioners' claims and required formal administrative consideration. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider and decide upon the representation (Ext.P8) within two months, while having due regard to the findings in the earlier internal minutes (Ext.P7).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grievance regarding violation of statutory work allocation rules. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court mandate to authorities to decide pending representations considering previous findings. (Para 3 , 4) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are registered headload workers under the jurisdiction of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, Mattanchery Sub Committee. The grievance of the petitioners is that, in violation of Rule 8 of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, certain workers allotted to different pools under the third respondent are transgressing into and availing works from the pools allotted to the petitioners, resulting in serious prejudice and pecuniary loss to the petitioners. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that a perusal of Ext.P7 issued by the third respondent will indicate that the complaint of the petitioners is genuine. It is submitted that, despite the findings in Ext.P7, the statutory authorities have not taken any action to ensure that the grievance of the petitioners is redressed.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that a perusal of Ext.P7 will indicate that the committee had taken note of the complaint raised by the petitioners and had given necessary instructions to ensure that there is no encroachment by other workers into the areas allotted to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have now submitted Ext.P8 before the first respondent and the first respondent will consider Ext.P8 and take necessary action in accordance with the law.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the fourth respondent, I am of the opinion that atleast at the first instance, the matter has to be considered by the first respondent, also taking note of the findings in Ext.P7.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P8, also having due regard to Ext.P7. Since Ext.P8 has been pending before the first respondent from the month of September 2025, the first respondent shall endeavor to take a decision on Ext.P8, as directed above, within a period of two months from today.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
