High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2017-01-16Writ petition disposed of; petition allowed in ...

GRAMODHAYA VANITHA KENDRAM v. Sub Inspector of Police, Walayar Police Station & Head Load Workers of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Pudussery Unit

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 254 of 2017 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Antony Dominic
Dama Seshadri Naidu
Judgment Date: 2017-01-16
Court Decision / Holding: We hold that the second respondent cannot insist on drawing from the Board pool unless the loading/unloading work is predominant or exclusive. The writ petition is disposed of; the first respondent is directed to register a crime on the petitioner's complaint if members of the second respondent or any others violate the law, and to provide police protection as necessary to prevent breach of peace.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; petition allowed in terms

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

GRAMODHAYA VANITHA KENDRAM

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police Walayar Police Station, Palakkad
Head Load Workers of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) Pudussery Unit, represented by its Secretary, Pudussery, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
• SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
• SRI.M.R.MANIKANTAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

Gramodhaya Vanitha Kendram, a registered society engaged in the manufacture of washing soaps in Palakkad, seeks police protection against a demand by the Head Load Workers’ Union that loading and unloading be performed only by registered workers or by workers drawn from the Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board. The petitioner’s unit is largely manufacturing-based, with a minority of workers involved in loading and unloading of stock. The respondents argue that the area is a scheme-covered zone and that the petitioner must employ either registered workers for loading/unloading or draw from the pool maintained by the Board; they allege that the petitioner uses unregistered labour for loading/unloading. The petitioner relies on Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police (2015) (3) KHC 487), a Larger Bench decision, which states that unless the workforce is exclusively engaged in loading/unloading, the Board’s pool applicability does not arise. The respondent contends Theresa Jose does not apply here. After hearing, the court agrees that the petitioner’s contention has force and, guided by Theresa Jose, holds that the second respondent cannot insist on Board pool recruitment unless the loading/unloading work is predominant. The court directs the first respondent to register a crime on any violation and to provide police protection to prevent breach of peace; the writ petition is disposed of in the petitioner’s favor with protective directions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that their unit is primarily manufacturing with some loading/unloading activity. It challenges the demand that loading/unloading be handled exclusively by registered workers or drawn from the Board’s pool, noting that not all work is headload-related. Relying on Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police (2015) (3) KHC 487) (Larger Bench), the petitioner argues that headload status arises only if loading/unloading is predominant. It emphasizes that the area is scheme-covered but, given the actual work profile, exclusive reliance on Board pool is unwarranted and that unregistered workers are not exclusively employed for loading. It seeks police protection and dismissal of the coercive demand. Respondents’ arguments: The second respondent maintains the area is a scheme-covered zone and that the petitioner must employ either registered workers for loading/unloading or draw from the Board pool; they allege the petitioner uses unregistered workers for loading/unloading and view compliance as essential to maintain law and order and welfare scheme objectives, supported by government pleader.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that since the area is scheme-covered, loading/unloading work must be performed by registered workers or from the Board pool; the petitioner's use of unregistered labour is impermissible; they contend that Theresa Jose (Large Bench) applies to fix the scope of headload workers and that predominant loading/unloading work determines eligibility for Board pool participation; they request that the court uphold the policy and ensure compliance and public order.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police	2015 (3) KHC 487	Positive	Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that Headload status depends on whether loading/unloading is predominantly the worker’s activity; the court relies on this principle to limit Board-pool applicability.
Raghavan's case	—	Positive	Full Bench judgment cited within Theresa Jose (supra) for the proposition that the predominant nature of loading/unloading dictates headload classification; used to support the court’s reasoning.

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 GRAMODHAYA VANITHA KENDRAM v. Sub Inspector of Police, Walayar Police Station & Head Load Workers of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Pudussery Unit 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 ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938 ## WP(C).No. 254 of 2017 (F) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------- GRAMODHAYA VANITHA KENDRAM SY.NO.462/3 & 5, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD - 678 621, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RAJI. R., W/O. SURESH NATHA, AGED 34 YEARS. ## BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 624. 2. HEAD LOAD WORKERS OF BHARATIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) PUDUSSERY UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKD - 678 623. R2 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.MANIKANTAN R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 254 of 2017 (F) -------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------ EXT. R2(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF G. RAMAMOORTHY. EXT.R2(a-1):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF K JYOTHY KUMAR. EXT.R2(a-2):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF M. MURUKESAN. EXT.R2(a-3):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF M. ARUMUGHAN. EXT.R2(a-4):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF JANARDHANAN. EXT.R2(a-5):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF RIJEESH C EXT.R2(a-6):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF SHANMUGHAN R. EXT.R2(a-7):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF M. MANU EXT.R2(a-8):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF G. RADHAKRISHNAN EXT.R2(a-9):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD M. GIREESH EXT.R2(a-10):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF MANOJ T EXT.R2(a-11):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF M. VIJAYAN EXT.R2(a-12):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF PRABHU RAM EXT.R2(a-13):- TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF KAMARAJAN EXT.R2(b):- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SUB COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD ON 26.12.16 ---------- ## ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. -----------------------------------------------W. P. (C) No.254 of 2017 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of January, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.** The petitioner, a registered society, is a small-scale industry engaged in the manufacturing of washing-soaps. The society's members themselves carry on the bulk of manufacturing activity, though the society engages a few other workers as well. It has no specialized workforce; nor has it divided the work among its employees. The work includes loading and unloading of the stock and material, too. 2. The petitioner complains that the second respondent Union has been disrupting the society’s manufacturing activities demanding that they should be engaged for W. P. (C) No.254 of 2017 -2- loading and unloading. Threatened, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking police protection. 3. The second respondent has filed its counter affidavit. It contends that the area in which the petitioner established its manufacturing unit is a scheme covered area. It further contends that the petitioner can either have its registered workers, if any, engaged for loading and unloading or must draw from the pool of Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board. On the contrary, the petitioner has been engaging, avers the second respondent, unregistered workers for loading and unloading activities. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his submissions, has brought to our notice **Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police [2015 (3) KHC 487],** a judgment rendered by a Larger Bench of this Court. Referring to it, he contends that unless the workforce is exclusively engaged for ‘predominantly’ loading and unloading, the question of engaging registered workers or W. P. (C) No.254 of 2017 -3- drawing from the pool of the Board does not arise. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent has contended that the judgment of the Larger Bench does not apply to the facts of the case. According to him, the petitioner has been engaging unregistered workers exclusively for loading and unloading. And it is impermissible. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent, and the learned Government Pleader. 7. Indeed, we reckon that the petitioner’s contentions have force, given the law laid down by the learned Larger Bench in Theresa Jose's case (supra). It has, among other things, held: “30. Paragraph 21 of the Full Bench judgment in Raghavan's case (supra) has also stated that _if principally, the workers are employed to carry on the work other than loading and unloading, and the loading and unloading work is only occasional, they do not come within the definition of Headload workers. The Full Bench has also rightly observed that whether the nature of_ W. P. (C) No.254 of 2017 -4- _work of the headload worker is predominant work or not is a question which depends on the facts of each case._ To the above extent we approve the observation made by Full Bench in paragraph 21.” _(emphasis added)_ 8. As seen, the petitioner is a small-scale industry. Some members of the society themselves are engaged in the manufacturing activity. True that the petitioner also engages certain other workers. But given the workload, there is no material to hold that it has been engaging any unregistered workers exclusively for loading and unloading. Guided by the emphatic pronouncement of the learned Larger Bench, we hold that the second respondent cannot insist that the petitioner should draw from the pool of workers maintained by the Board unless it is engaging workforce predominantly or exclusively for loading and unloading work. 9. We therefore deem it proper to allow the writ petition directing the first respondent to register a crime on the petitioner's complaint, if the members of the second W. P. (C) No.254 of 2017 -5- respondent or any other persons violate the law. Further, the first respondent may also protect the petitioner’s establishment, as and when on investigation, the police conclude that there is potential for breach of peace or disturbance of law and order. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE** Sd/- **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE** kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge W. P. (C) No.254 of 2017 -6-