High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions

DIPAK GOGOI AND OTHERS v. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CIRCLE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, AND OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 10 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-01-05
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of with directions: (i) The 1st respondent shall consider and dispose Exts. P1–P9 as expeditiously as possible, within six weeks of receipt of this judgment, after hearing the petitioners and affected parties. (ii) Till final orders are passed, respondents 2–4 are free to permit petitioners to perform head-load work under respondents 6–8. (Sd)/P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dipak Gogoi
  • Mintu Saika
  • Mohan Boruah
  • Nava Jyoti Gogoi
  • Bijoy Gogoi
  • Pranabjit Gogoi
  • Binud Deori
  • Prakash Bordoloi
  • Mridul Gogoi

Respondents

  • The Assistant Labour Officer Ernakulam District Circle, Kakkanad, Kochi
  • Kerala Head Load Workers' Welfare Fund Board, represented by its Chief Executive Officer
  • The Ernakulam District Committee of Kerala Head Load Workers' Welfare Fund Board, represented by its Chairman
  • Kerala Head Load Workers' Welfare Fund Board, Sub Office, Tripunithura, represented by its Chairman
  • Maradu Market Traders Association
  • Jesamma. P.C
  • Sibi N Joseph
  • Bisty Jaison

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.B. Arunkumar
  • • T. U. Ziyad

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. Krishna Moorthy (Ernakulam)
  • • K.S. Arun Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition concerns nine head-load workers employed at the Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu, who submitted Exts. P1–P9 seeking registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The petitioners seek (i) dispensing with translated copies for admission, (ii) a mandamus directing the first respondent to consider Exts. P1–P9 after hearing within a time frame, (iii) a directive restraining respondents 2–4 from deputing head-load workers in the market to work for respondents 6–8, and (iv) permission for petitioners to perform head-load work under their employers pending final orders, along with other proper directions. The court notes the limited prayer is to consider Exts. P1–P9; it references the judgment in WA No. 1942/2022 and Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board v. Hishad M.B. and Others (ILR 2022 (3) Kerala 688), to the effect that an attached worker need not be immediately registered and may work under the employer while registration proceeds, with registration to follow under Rule 26A. Consequently, the court disposes the petition with directions: (a) the first respondent shall expeditiously consider Exts. P1–P9 within six weeks after hearing, and (b) till final orders, respondents 2–4 may permit petitioners to head-load work under respondents 6–8. The decision is issued by a single judge, P.V. Kunhikrishnan.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, Rule 26AKerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Scheme (1983) – Clause 61983 Scheme

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Status quo should be maintained
  • An attached worker does not have to be registered as a headload worker for doing headload work
  • So long as employed and attached to employer, he will not come under the coverage of the 1983 Scheme

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contend they are head-load workers at the Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu, with Exts. P1–P9 seeking registration under Rule 26A. They seek dispensation of translation copies for admission, a mandamus to consider Exts. P1–P9 after hearing within a timeframe, and interim relief allowing them to continue head-load work under their employers pending final orders. They challenge non-consideration of their applications and rely on the decision in Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board v. Hishad M.B. and Others (ILR 2022 (3) Kerala 688) and WA No. 1942/2022 to argue that an attached worker may be engaged by an employer and registration can follow under Rule 26A once work begins; that status quo should be maintained pending registration. They seek expeditious disposal within six weeks and continued interim work until final orders.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents consent to the relief seeking consideration of Exts. P1–P9, and rely on WA No. 1942/2022 as covering the issue. They support interim allowance for petitioners to work under employers pending final orders, consistent with the 1983 Scheme and ILR 2022 Kerala 688 principles, and emphasize expeditious processing of registration in line with the court’s directions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board v. Hishad M.B. and OthersILR 2022 (3) Kerala 688PositiveJudgment cited to support the proposition that an attached worker need not be registered before working; status quo may be maintained and registration can occur subsequently under Rule 26A.
W.A. No. 1942/2022WA No. 1942/2022PositiveJudgment dated 20/12/2022 in WA No. 1942/2022 is relied upon as covering the subject matter and guiding relief in this case.

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 DIPAK GOGOI AND OTHERS v. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CIRCLE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, 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 MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 15TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1DIPAK GOGOI AGED 27 YEARS C/O. NAGESWAR GOPI, ANNAPUR, GOHPUR, SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN – 784 168 2MINTU SAIKA AGED 30 YEARS C/O. RUPESHWAR SAIKA, PASCHIM NILAKH, NO.!, NILAKH KONCH, GOAN, ASSAM, PIN – 786 110 3MOHAN BORUAH AGED 25 YEARS RANGPURIA, SIMEN CHAPORI, NO.2, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 061 4NAVA JYOTI GOGOI AGED 32 YEARS C/O. BIMAL GOGOI, VIII/ TOWN- NILAKH TARANIPATHAR, SILAPATHAT, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 110. 5BIJOY GOGOI AGED 21 YEARS C/O. THANUKRISHNA GOGOI, PHUTHUKOBARI, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 110. 6PRANABJIT GOGOI AGED 21 YEARS KUKHESWAR GOGOI, NO. 2, HOLAGURI, CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN – 785 673. 7BINUD DEORI AGED 38 YEARS C/O. MINESWAR DSEORI, KAPAHATALI, DEURIGAON, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 110. ``` WP(C) No. 10 of 2023 2 ``` 8PRAKASH BORDOLOI AGED 22 YEARS S/O. PURANJAY BORDOLOI, 10, NILAKH CHERIALI, BETANIPAM, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 110. 9MRIDUL GOGOI AGED 30 YEARS S/O. SHUBHA GOGOI, BALI, DHEMAJI, CHAPORI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 061. BY ADVS. K.B.ARUNKUMAR T.U.ZIYAD ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CIRCLE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682 030.` - `2 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 018.` - `3 THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, T.D. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 035.` ``` 4KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, SUB OFFICE, TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PLAKUZHY BUILDING, HILL PALACE ROAD, CHATHARI, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN – 682 301. ``` ``` 5MARADU MARKET TRADERS ASSOCIATION REG. NO. ER-391/08, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ROOM NO. A/1, AUW MARKET, NETTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 040. 6JESAMMA. P.C PROPRIETOR, SHOP ROOM NO. P3-29-30, AUW MARKET, NETTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 040. ``` WP(C) No. 10 of 2023 3 ``` 7SIBI N JOSEPH PROPRIETOR, SHOP ROOM NO. P3-13, 14, AUW MARKET, NETTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 040. 8BISTY JAISON PROPRIETOR, SHOP ROOM NO. P3-15, AUW MARKET, NETTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 040. BY ADVS. S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM) K.S.ARUN KUMAR ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` ADV.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - SR. GP & ADV. K. S. ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR R2 ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) No. 10 of 2023 4 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **WP(C) No. 10 of 2023** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of January, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- - _i. Pass an order dispensing with production of translated copies of Exhibits for the purpose of admission of the above writ petition;_ - _ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibits P-1 to P-9 applications submitted by the petitioners after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court._ - _iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 4 to refrain from deputing head load workers in the market for carrying out head load works of the respondents 6 to 8._ - _iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 4 to permit petitioners to do head load works under the respective employers, the respondents 6 to 8,_ _and_ - _v. such other order or direction deems fit and proper for this Hon'ble Court in facts and circumstances of the case._ WP(C) No. 10 of 2023 5 2. Petitioners are employed as Headload workers at Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu, in the shops of respondents Nos. 6 to 8. Petitioners made Exts.P1 to P9 applications for registration under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, before the 1[st] respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1[st] respondent is not considering the same. The additional prayer in this writ petition is to allow the petitioners to continue in the work in the light of Ext.P10 judgment. Hence this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. No notice is necessary to respondents Nos. 4 to 8 at this stage. If they are aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, they are free to file a review petition before this Court. 4. The limited prayer of these writ petitioners is to consider Exts.P1 to P9 applications. That prayer can be allowed. As far as the 2[nd] prayer is concerned, the point is covered in favour of the petitoners in the judgment dated 20/12/2022 in WA No. 1942/2022. It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment; _Having heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. N. Sukumaran, instructed by Adv. Sri. V.K. Balachandran, Standing Counsel for the Board Sri. K.S. Arun Kumar and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, we are of the view that the_ WP(C) No. 10 of 2023 6 _subject matter of the appeal is covered by our judgment in_ _**Kerala**_ ## _**Head Load Workers Welfare Board v. Hishad M.B. And Others**_ _**[ILR 2022 (3) Kerala 688]** , the relevant directions of which are as_ _follows:_ _"An attached worker, on the other hand, does not have to be registered as a headload worker for doing headload work. He can be employed or engaged to do such work in the establishment of his employer and thereafter seek registration in terms of Rule 26A once he starts doing headload work in that establishment. Further, so long as he is in the employment or engagement of an employer and attached to the latter's establishment, he will not come under the coverage of the 1983 Scheme either. Clause 6 of the Scheme will therefore not be attracted in his case, to prevent him from working in a scheme covered area"._ _Going by the above, it can be seen that the prayer of the appellants that status quo ought to be maintained in the matter of head load work carried on by the appellants in the market pending disposal of their applications for registration by the first respondent has to be granted. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Appeal maintaining the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the application for registration preferred by the appellants and also ordering that pending such registration, the appellants will be permitted to be employed or engaged to do head load work under the employer._ _Writ appeal is allowed to the above extent._ In the light of the same, the 2[nd ] prayer also can be allowed. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; WP(C) No. 10 of 2023 7 (i) There will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P1 to P9 applications, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the other affected parties. (ii) Till final orders are passed in Exts.P1 to P9 applications, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are free to permit the petitioners to do head load works under the respondents Nos. 6 to 8. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** AMR WP(C) No. 10 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10/2023`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1 ``` - `THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit p9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2022 IN W.A.NO. 1942/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`