Ernakulam District Headload and General Workers' Union (AITUC) Puthencruz Unit v Circle Inspector of Police, Puthencruz; Sub Inspector of Police, Puthencruz; District Labour Officer, Ernakulam; Deputy Labour Commissioner (Appellate Authority under the Headload Workers Act); Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board; Kerala State Beverages(M&M) Co-Operative Limited; Sri C.C. Nishad; B.B. Abdul Khadir

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN &** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 7902 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **1 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (AITUC) PUTHENCRUZ UNIT, PIN-682 308 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY T.K.ASHOK KUMAR.** **2 T.K.ASHOK KUMAR, POOL LEADER, POOL NO.38, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PUTHENCRUZ, RESIDING AT THAMARACHALIL, MEENPARA P.O., PARIYARAM KARA, PUTHENCRUZ, PIN-682 308.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 308.** **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682 308.** **3. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682 030.** **4. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE HEADLOAD WORKERS ACT)** **OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 030.** **5. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PUTHENCRUZ,(SUB OFFICE), GOVERNMENT SERVANTS** - **CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.E.153, PUTHENCRUZ P.O. PIN-682 308, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** **6. KERALA STATE BEVARAGES(M & M)CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, WARE HOUSE - CHOONDY, ALUVA -683 105, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.** **WP(C).No. 7902 of 2018** **7. SRI. C.C.NISHAD,** **POOL LEADER, POOL NO. 42, KARIMUGAL, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PUTHENCRUZ,(SUB OFFICE) GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. E.153, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., PIN-682 308.** **8. B.B.ABDUL KHADIR, POOL LEADER, POOL NO. 43, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PUTHENCRUZ,(SUB OFFICE), GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.E.153, PUTHENCRUZ P.O, PIN - 682 308.** **R6 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO. M. AND M. R7-R8 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL** - **R1 TO R4 BY SRI.RENIL ANTO, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **R5 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 7902 of 2018 (K)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/05/2018 OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 03.03.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R7(a) : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.5.2017. EXHIBIT R7(b) : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2017 IN WP(C) 16584/2017 OF THIS COURT.** **EXHIBIT R7(c) : COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 5.11.2004 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE HEADLOAD WORKERS OF POOL NO.42 AND 43 AND HEADLOAD WORKERS OF POOL NO.39 AND 40.** **//TRUE COPY//** **PS TO JUDGED.** jg-12/4 K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------WP(C) No.7902 of 2018 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of April, 2018 ## J U D G M E N T ## Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the obstruction caused to the members of pool No.38 in carrying out the loading and unloading work in a Beverages Corporation outlet. The petitioners submit that the Beverages Corporation outlet was situated near to the National Highway and pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same has been shifted to an interior place. However, even the present location is situated within the area of pool No.38. The party respondents, who are members of Pool Nos.42 and 43, oppose the members of pool No.38 being involved in the work. Physical obstruction is alleged and hence, police protection is sought for. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 7 and 8 submits that Ext.P2 is challenged before the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.9362/2018. After appearance of respondents, who are the petitioners herein, the matter has been adjourned 'after vacation' WPC 7902/18 2 without any interim orders. Respondents 7 and 8 had approached the District Labour Officer, who had allowed the claim and directed that members of pool Nos.42 and 43 are to be participated in the work carried on in the Beverages Corporation's outlet. An appeal was filed by the petitioners in which Ext.P2 order was passed. The learned counsel for the party respondents submits that Ext.P2 is not an order passed in accordance with the provisions, especially when there is a reference to the Board by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and in the meanwhile, there is a participation directed of the members of pool Nos.38, 42 & 43. It is also submitted that the Union cannot file an appeal as has been held in 2004(2) KLT 601 [Chummattu Thozhilali Union v. Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board] . 3. We first deal with Chummattu Thozhilali Union (supra) , wherein on consolidation of two Pools, constituted under the Kerala Head load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, five persons in the closed down pool had obtained registration as Headload Workers. However the members of the Pool to which the others were included, in available vacancies objected to the participation of WPC 7902/18 3 the newly inducted registered workers. The Convenor of the Committee hence passed an order directing that the amount collected by the Board, with respect to the work carried out by the Pool, were to be shared as wages amongst the Pool members, including the newly inducted five workers. The Union was in appeal under Paragraph 6E of the Scheme. The decision declares that under Paragraph 6E, only a person aggrieved by the rejection of application could file an appeal and the Union cannot maintain an appeal against the registration. The appeal provision, 6E specifically speaks of an appeal from sub-clauses (4), (5) & (5) respectively of Paragraphs 6A,6B & 6C which speaks of registration, (i) at the commencement of the Scheme, (ii) replenishment of workers, and (iii) dependant employment. No appeal was provided from a registration granted. 4. We are not convinced that the dictum would apply herein, since the Union and the Pool leader of Pool No.38 have filed the present appeal under Section 21(6), against an order passed under Section 21(4). The dispute was confined to the area allotted for each of the Pools. Pool No.38 was carrying on the work in its area and was also allotted the work of the Beverages WPC 7902/18 4 Corporation outlet. The dispute arose when the same was shifted. Poll Nos. 42 & 43 claimed that work for themselves. The District Labour Officer found the issue in favour of respondents 4 & 5, against which an appeal was filed. In appeal the Board was directed to find out documents clearly demarcating the area of operation of each Pools and if not available; to determine it. We also see from Ext.P2 that the reference to the Board is to bring a quietus to the issue. 5. The learned Standing Counsel submits, on instructions, that the Chairman has initiated a conciliation. In the interregnum Ext.P2 ordered that all the pool members should be participated in loading and unloading work. We think that it is perfectly in order for the statutory authority to have made such directions and in the meanwhile directed sharing of work by all the Pools. We do not see any right on respondents 7 and 8 to obstruct carrying on of the work in the interregnum by participation of the members of Pool No.38 also, much less any authority to physically cause obstruction. We, hence, direct that Ext.P2 will be scrupulously followed till a conciliation is arrived at or it is interfered with in the Writ Petition WPC 7902/18 5 pending before this Court. Till that time, the interim arrangement shall be enforced and if any physical obstruction is caused, it shall be ensured that members of Pool No.38 are also participated in the loading and unloading work, by respondents 1 and 2. If any complaint of physical obstruction by any of the members of other pools are reported to the Board by the 2[nd] respondent, such members shall be disqualified from being further included in the Pool. It is also made clear that if due to obstruction the members of Pool No.38 are obstructed from work, then dehors the fact that they had not worked, they shall be entitled to their share of wages from the amounts collected by the Board. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg