High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-11-16Writ petition disposed of; prayers refused; dir...

Cheereth Metals v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puthencruz Police Station, and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date: 2022-11-16
Court Decision / Holding: The prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The contentions of the parties are left open to be decided in the appeal. Till such time, the parties shall abide by the present arrangement with regard to the loading and unloading work as provided in Ext.R2B.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; prayers refused; directions to continue with Ext.R2B arrangement pending appeal; rights reserved for further consideration in the appeal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Cheereth Metals

Respondents

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puthencruz Police Station, Puthencruz – 682 308
Head Load and General Workers Union (A.I.T.U.C.) Puthencruz Unit
C.I.T.U. Head Load Workers Union Puthencruz, Pool No.39, Pin – 682 308
I.N.T.U.C. Head Load Workers Union Puthencruz, Pool No. 39, Pin – 682 308
Head Load Workers Welfare Board Puthencruz Regional Office, Puthencruz – 682 308

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Biju Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Ramakrishnan
• K.S. Arun Kumar
• Preethi Ramakrishnan
• T.C. Krishna
• C. Anil Kumar
• Pratap Abraham Varghese
• Asha K. Shenoy
• Sri Jibu T.S., Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Cheereth Metals, a wholesale painter and building materials supplier at Puthencruz, approached the Kerala High Court seeking directions for adequate protection to carry on loading and unloading operations at its establishment. The petition asserts that the company historically engaged its own permanent workers, with periodic assistance from local headload pools. In September 2021, a demand by pool workers to monopolize loading/unloading and to demand higher wages threatened operations, prompting the petitioner to rely on a Division Bench judgment (Ext. P5) suggesting that permanent workers could perform loading/unloading even if not registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The petitioner contends that unions have no right to claim exclusive work and claims that his registered permanent workers are capable of and entitled to perform loading/unloading tasks. The 2nd respondent union counters that, in a scheme-area, all loading/unloading work is performed by pool workers of Pool No.38, with wages fixed by bilateral agreement Ext. R2A; the ALO granted registration to three permanent workers via Ext. R2B but with a rider that the registration preserves existing status quo and work allocation, which is under appeal before the DLO. The petition and counter-affidavits refer to Theresa Jose (2015) to emphasize mandatory registration under Rule 26A in scheme areas. The court ultimately declines the prayer for relief, but directs the parties to adhere to the Ext. R2B arrangement pending appeal, leaving merits to be decided in the appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Headload Workers Rules, Rule 26AKerala Headload Workers Act and Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

All headload workers including permanent workers attached to an establishment are liable to get registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules
In scheme areas, no headload worker who is not registered under the rules shall be allowed or required to work.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that it has permanent workers and that, relying on a Division Bench judgment (Ext. P5), loading and unloading can be carried out by permanent workers even if they are not registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, especially since the area in question is scheme-covered and the unions have no right to claim exclusive control over loading/unloading. It argues that Ext. R2A bilateral agreement sets the framework for work allocation and that registration granted to some permanent workers should not prevent the establishment from employing its own workers.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the area is a scheme-covered zone where Pool No.38 workers perform loading/unloading; wage rates are fixed by bilateral agreements (Ext. R2A). The ALO’s Ext. R2B order granting registration to petitioner's permanent workers includes a rider preserving the status quo of work allocation. They argue that the PIL/petition does not disclose all facts and that the matter is to be decided in appeal; the petition should be dismissed in limine. They rely on the ongoing settlement and the need to maintain orderly work allocation under the headload scheme.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police, Thoppumpady and others	2015 (1) KLT 485	Positive	Overruled, Distinguished, or Positive: The decision is cited to establish the principle that all headload workers, including permanent workers, must be registered under Rule 26A in scheme areas; the court treats this as controlling authority for registration requirements.
W.A. No. 109/2022	W.A. No. 109/2022	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P5 judgment is referenced as background material; not treated as binding precedent in deciding the writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 28734/2022	W.P.(C) No. 28734/2022	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P9 judgment cited for background context; not treated as binding authority in the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Cheereth Metals v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puthencruz Police Station, and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022** ## **- PETITIONER :** CHEERETH METALS CHURCH ROAD, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM – 682 308 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SAJEE C.M., S/O.C.V. MATHAI, AGED 64 YEARS BY ADV BIJU ABRAHAM **- RESPONDENTS :** 1 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, PUTHENCRUZ – 682 308. 2 HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (A.I.T.U.C) PUTHENCRUZ UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3 C.I.T.U HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION PUTHENCRUZ, POOL NO.39, PIN – 682 308 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 4 I.N.T.U.C. HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION PUTHENCRUZ, POOL NO. 39, PIN – 682 308 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 5 HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD PUTHENCRUZ REGIONAL OFFICE, PUTHENCRUZ – 682 308 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BY ADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN K.S.ARUN KUMAR PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) T.C.KRISHNA C.ANIL KUMAR PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE ASHA K.SHENOY BY SRI.JIBU T.S., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2022, THE COURT ON 16.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022 -: 2 :- ## JUDGMENT ## Dated this the 16th day of November, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the 1[st] respondent to grant adequate protection to the petitioner, the establishment and workers therein for the smooth conduct of the business and for loading and unloading work by the workers of the petitioner. 2. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner, a partnership firm, is dealing in wholesale marketing of paint and ancillary items, building materials, etc. It is submitted that the establishment used to engage its own workers with headload workers from the local pool being engaged occasionally. It is submitted that in September, 2021, the pool workers demanded the entire loading and unloading work as a monopoly and demanded a wage hike as evidenced by Ext.P1 letter. It is submitted that the petitioner has permanent registered workers as evidenced by Exts.P2 to P4 and that the petitioner has other regular permanent workers. Relying on Ext.P5 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, it is contended that the petitioner can carry out the loading and unloading work with its permanent workers even if they are not registered under Rule 26A of the WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022 -: 3 :- Headload Workers Rules and that the unions have not right to raise any claim for loading and unloading work. It is further contended that though complaints have been raised against the illegal activities of the contesting respondents, no action has been taken by the police. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is placed on record by the 2[nd] respondent wherein it is contended that the 2[nd] respondent Union represents the registered headload workers of Pool No.38 under the 5[th] respondent Board. It is contended that the area in question is a scheme covered area and all loading and unloading work are being carried out by the workers of Pool No.38. It is submitted that the rates of wages in the area is fixed through bilateral agreements entered into between the 2[nd] respondent and the Merchants Association and Ext.R2A settlement signed on 15.3.2022 is in existence. It is contended that Ext.R2B order dated 31.5.2022 of the Assistant Labour Officer (for short, 'the ALO') granting registration to the petitioner's permanent workers is under challenge in appeal before the District Labour Officer, who is the appellate authority under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules and the said appeal is pending. It is further contended that the said order contains a specific WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022 -: 4 :- condition that the registration is being granted without prejudice to the existing status quo with regard to the loading and unloading work in the area. It is submitted that since the writ petition is filed without disclosing the actual facts, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 4. A reply affidavit is also placed on record contending that the issue between the parties stands covered by the judgment of the Division Bench. It is further contended that the order dated 31.5.2022 of the ALO has been challenged in appeal by the petitioner also and that this Court by Ext.P9 judgment has directed the consideration of the said appeal. It is further contended that the petitioner has his own permanent workers and that the 2[nd] respondent or its members have absolutely no right to demand work since the petitioner intends to carry out the work using his permanent headload workers. 5. I have considered the contentions advanced. The specific case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to carry out the loading and unloading work in the establishment on the strength of the registration granted to his permanent workers. However, the fact that Ext.R2A agreement has been entered into between the Merchants Association and the 2[nd] respondent for WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022 -: 5 :- the period from 4.10.2021 to 3.10.2023 is not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner does not also raise any contention that he is not bound by the said agreement. His contention is only that he has permanent workers and that the loading and unloading work is to be carried out by such workers even though the area in question is a scheme covered area. 6. A larger Bench of this Court in Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police, Thoppumpady and others [2015 (1) KLT 485] had held that all headload workers including permanent workers attached to establishment are liable to get registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. It was further held that in the areas where scheme is applicable, no headload worker who is not a registered headload worker as per the Kerala Headload Workers Rules shall be allowed or required to work. It was held that it is also necessary that such headload worker shall get a registration under the provisions of the scheme. 7. In the instant case, it is clear that three of the petitioner's permanent workers have been granted registration under Rule 26A by the ALO. It is contended by the 2[nd] respondent that the order by which registration was granted itself reserved the rights of the pool workers to carry out such WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022 -: 6 :- activity as has been agreed between them. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent would contend that with regard to all items except paint and paint materials, the union has absolutely no objection to the petitioner's attached registered workers carrying out the loading and unloading. However, with regard to the unloading of materials coming to the premises has been specifically allotted to the union by a bipartite settlement and that the rates of wages has also been specifically fixed. It is contended that Ext.R2B would show that the registration is granted specifically in terms of Ext.R2A and that the petitioner has no manner of right to violate Ext.R2A which is binding on them as well. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has also filed an appeal before the DLO against the conditions as provided in Ext.R2B. It is, therefore, clear that the existence of the condition in Ext.R2B is acknowledged by the petitioner as well. In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the prayers as sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The contentions of the parties are left open to be decided in the appeal. Till such time, the parties shall abide by the present WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022 -: 7 :- arrangement with regard to the loading and unloading work as provided in Ext.R2B. All contentions of the parties are left open. Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/4.11.2022 WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022 -: 8 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31692/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15-09-2021 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CARD OF AYYAPPAN KUTTY WORKING UNDER THE PETITIONER AS REGISTERED HEADLOAD WORKER DATED 31-05-2022 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CARD OF RAMESH CHAUDHARI WORKING UNDER THE PETITIONER AS REGISTERED HEADLOAD WORKER DATED 31-05-2022 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CARD OF AMAR KUMAR WORKING UNDER THE PETITIONER AS REGISTERED HEADLOAD WORKER DATED 31-05-2022 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-08-2022 IN W.A.NO.109/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03-10-2022 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT GIVEN FROM THE PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03-10-2022 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE AS AGAINST EXHIBIT R-2B EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 28734/2022 DATED 02-09-2022 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION DATED 17-10-2022 EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION DATED 17-10-2022 WP(C) NO.31692 OF 2022 -: 9 :- RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- EXHIBIT R2A TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 15/3/2022 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNION. EXHIBIT R2B TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/5/2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR.