High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-01-28Writ petition disposed of with directions as st...

K.K. Issac and Company v. District Police Chief Rural Police District, Aluva, Ernakulam and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.32221 OF 2019(C)

Neutral Citation:

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Judgment Date: 2020-01-28
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (1) An employer having permanent headload workers must maintain the register of such employees wherever they are engaged and must intimate the relevant Assistant Labour Officer about engagements outside the original registration; (2) If the company has intimated the AL Officer of Kothamangalam regarding engagement of permanent workers, police shall provide necessary protection to the petitioners against obstructions by other headload workers or their associates; (3) Under no circumstances can the company engage any other headload workers who are not registered with them; where additional workers are required, the company should approach the committee to procure workers; (4) The certification of compliance with these terms will be used for ongoing monitoring; (5) The caution that protection is not a license to circumvent registration requirements.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.K. Issac and Company
Lissy KuriaKose

Respondents

District Police Chief, Rural Police District, Aluva, Ernakulam
Sub Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam Police Station, Kothamangalam
Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, Kothamangalam
Assistant Labour Officer, Mini Civil Station, Kothamangalam
Sajan Paul, Secretary, Headload Workers Union, INTUC
Benny Mathew, Secretary, Headload Workers Union, CITU

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Jelson J. Edampadam

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Krishna Moorthy (ERNAKULAM), Senior Counsel for KHWWB
• Sri Alexander Joseph
• Sri Teresa C. Joseph
• Sri P. P. Thajudeen, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition filed under WP(C).No.32221/2019(C) before the Kerala High Court seeks police protection for an employer engaged in cement, steel and construction activities at Perumbavoor and Kothamangalam under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. The petitioners—K.K. Issac and Company and Lissy KuriaKose—maintain headload workers registered under the Act and claim to engage them across establishments for loading/unloading at a construction site in Kothamangalam. The core issue is whether an employer with multiple establishments is required to register headload workers separately at each establishment. The court relies on the principle from Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police that permanent headload workers may operate beyond the original area if the engagement is for the establishment. The judge emphasizes that under Section 3(j) the term establishment encompasses the precincts and is not confined to a narrow locale; registration is linked to the establishment, not the physical location alone. Nevertheless, the employer must maintain employment registers wherever workers are engaged (Rule 27) and must intimate the relevant Assistant Labour Officer when engaging workers outside the original registration. The court directs that police protection shall be provided if the employer has intimated the AL Officer and is acting within the scheme, but prohibits employing unregistered workers. If additional workers are needed, the employer must approach the committee. The petition is disposed of with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 - Section 3(j)Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 - Rule 27Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 - Rule 26(A)Kerala Headload Workers (Attached Group) Welfare Scheme, 1995 (Note to paragraph 7)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Establishment is defined by the activity rather than a narrow geographical location; a single establishment can engage its permanent headload workers beyond the location of original registration.
Registration is vis-a-vis the establishment, not the physical site; an establishment must maintain records wherever it engages workers.
Employers must maintain the register of employment and wages (Form No.V) at all work spots where permanent workers are engaged and must obtain signatures/thumb impressions from workers.
Intimation to the jurisdictional Assistant Labour Officer is required when engaging permanent workers outside the original registration; the AL Officer is to verify the identity of engaged workers.
Note to paragraph 7 of the scheme provides exemptions where records are maintained as per the attached group welfare scheme.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their establishment has multiple locations (Perumbavoor and Kothamangalam) under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and that their registered permanent headload workers can be engaged across these establishments. They rely on the doctrine from Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. that as long as a permanent headload workforce is employed for the establishment, its activities may extend beyond the area of initial registration, since the establishment is defined by its ongoing activity rather than strict geographic confines. They argue that registration is with respect to the establishment, not the location, and request police protection to safeguard ongoing construction work against obstructions by unaffiliated workers. They emphasize compliance with statutory responsibilities (keeping Form No.V registers, maintaining records, and timely intimations).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents emphasize that employment and registration are location-sensitive and that the employer must maintain separate registers at each establishment where workers are engaged. They argue the need to intimate the Assistant Labour Officer in each area where engagement occurs and to ensure verification of identity for workers engaged beyond the original registration. The respondents point to the statutory framework (Rules 27, 26(A)) and the welfare scheme, noting that exemptions apply only if records are kept as per the scheme, and stress enforcement to protect worker rights and prevent unregistered labor from being employed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police	2012 (3) KLT 58	Positive	Cited for the principle that an establishment’s scope extends beyond a fixed area and that permanent headload workers can be engaged across locations when the engagement is for the establishment.

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 K.K. Issac and Company v. District Police Chief Rural Police District, Aluva, Ernakulam 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.32221 OF 2019(C)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 K.K.ISSAC AND COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, JOHNY JACOB, THANKALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686691** - **2 LISSY KURIAKOSE KUTTICHIRAKUDIYIL HOUSE, OONNUKAL P. O., KOTHAMANGALAM - 686947.** - **BY ADV. SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF RURAL POLICE DISTRICT, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683101.** - **2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 686691.** - **3 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686691.** - **4 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686691.** - **5 SAJAN PAUL SECRETARY, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, INTUC, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686691.** - **6 BENNY MATHEW SECRETARY, HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, CITU, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686691.** **R3 BY SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY (ERNAKULAM), SC, KHWWB R5-6 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH R5-6 BY ADV. SMT.TERESA C. JOSEPH** **SR GP ADV. SRI.P P THAJUDEEN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.32221 OF 2019(C)** **2** ## **C.R** ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 28th day of January 2020** This writ petition is filed for police protection. The 1[st] petitioner-company is engaged in the business of cement, steal, iron, etc at Perumbavoor and Kothamangalam within Ernakulam District. Both Perumbavoor and Kothamangalam are covered under the scheme formulated under the Kerala headload Workers Act, 1978. The company is constructing a warehouse in the property of the 2[nd] petitioner at Kothamangalam. 2. The company is having registered headload workers. Exts. P7 to P9 are the identity cards issued to the headload workers under the 1[st] petitioner in terms of Rule 26(A) of the Kerala headload Workers Rules,1981 which were registered before the Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor. 3. The company's case is that they are engaging the same headload workers for loading and unloading in the construction site at Kothamangalam. The said submission was obstructed by the party **WP(C).No.32221 OF 2019(C)** **3** respondents stating that the company has no registered employees in Kothamangalam area. 4. The short issue that would arise for consideration is whether an employer who is having more than one establishment or branch is required to register headload workers in each of such establishments or not. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in _**Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police**_ [2012 (3) KLT 58] had held that as long as the establishment is having permanent headload workers working for the establishment irrespective of the area to which they belong to, they can carry on the work outside such area as long as it is for the establishment. 6. As per Section 3(j) of the Kerala headload Workers Act, an “establishment” means, an establishment specified in the Schedule and includes the precincts thereof. Therefore, an establishment cannot be understood to mean within the narrow geographical location. The establishment has to be understood based on a systematic activity being carried out and operated by an entity or a person within the **WP(C).No.32221 OF 2019(C)** **4** geographical area or beyond. If an activity of the establishment extends beyond a location where it is registered, that does not mean that the establishment cannot engage its own permanent employees for loading and unloading. The registration of headload workers is not vis-a-vis location but vis-a-vis establishment. Therefore, if the permanent headload workers are engaged by the establishment for its activities, no one can object to such engagement. 7. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the headload workers, the employer is bound to maintain a register of such permanent employees wherever they are engaged. 8. It is to be noted that under Rule 27 of the Kerala headload Workers Rules, 1981 every employer is bound to maintain the register of employment and wages in Form No.V. It shall be kept at the work spot and there shall be entries therein relating to each day's work. It is also a mandate that the employer shall obtain signature or thumb impression of every headload worker in the register of employment and wages. Therefore, if the establishment engages such workers in any other area, the employer must keep the register or records in all **WP(C).No.32221 OF 2019(C)** **5** places they intend to engage such permanent workers. This is for the purpose of verification of such records by the Assistant Labour Officer concerned. Though, there is no specific provision for intimating the jurisdictional Assistant Labour Officer in regard to the engagement of the permanent headload workers registered elsewhere, the purpose of Rule 27 will be served only when such an intimation is given to the jurisdictional Assistant Labour Officer in those areas other than where originally they were registered. Rule 27 has to be understood in the light of note to pargraph 7 of the scheme which reads as follows:- “ _An employer in the Scheme area who employs headload workers on a permanent and regular basis by maintaining the register of employment and wages in Form No.V of the Kerala Headload Workers' Rules, 1981 under the said Rules shall be exempted from the registration under para.7, if such employer produces sufficient proof that he keeps all records in respect of such permanent headload workers as stipulated in the Kerala Headload Workers (Attached Group) Welfare Scheme, 1995 employed in the establishment and if he does not require the services of the headload workers covered in this Scheme.”_ **WP(C).No.32221 OF 2019(C)** **6** 9. Therefore, the establishment which is having permanent employees is bound to maintain the register of such employees wherever they are engaged. The establishment is also bound to intimate the Assistant Labour Officer concerned in regard to the engagement of such headload workers, if the Assistant Labour Officer is not the original authority that granted the registration. The Assistant Labour Officer is bound to verify the identity of the person engaged by every employer. 10. In such circumstances, the comapny is bound to intimate the Assistant Labour Officer, Kothamangalam, in regard to the engagement of permanent workers in any of the branches belonging to them. 11. If the company is engaging their own workers and they had intimated the Assistant Labour Officer of Kothamangalam regarding the engagement of the permanent workers, the police shall give necessary protection to the petitioners as against the obstructions being caused by any other headload workers or their associates. However, it is made clear that under the guise of police protection or **WP(C).No.32221 OF 2019(C)** **7** under the guise of engagement of permanent headload workers, the company cannot engage any other headload workers, who have no registration with them. If the company requires any additional headload workers, they shall approach the committee to avail the service of headload workers. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ## **Sd/-** **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE** SAS/28/01/2020 **8** ## **WP(C).No.32221 OF 2019(C)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF 2ND PETITIONER, ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCEEDINGS NO.PW4-BA(86772)/2019 DATED 9.4.2019 ISSUED ON 6.5.2019.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6.11.2019 FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MATERIALS LOADED IN THE LORRY EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE 26(A) IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER - M.D.KURIAKOSE. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE 26(A) IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER - KURIAKOSE YACOB. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE 26(A) IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER - ABHILASH THOMAS. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.11.2019 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGE OF EXHIBIT P10 COMPLAINT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE POLICE, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT** RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE