IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32889 of 2009(E)
1. M.ABDUL SALAM, T.C.35/113,
... Petitioner
2. A.HAJA, PARAVILAKOM PUTHEN VEEDU,
3. M.RAHIM, T.C.35/525,
4. P.ABDUL RASHEED, P.J.MANZIL,
5. S.SHAJAHAN, HOUSE NO.1-195,
6. A.FIROZKHAN, T.C.35/701,
7. E.SUDHEER, THAZNI MANZIL,
8. A.RASHEED, T.C.35/46 (1),
9. P.KABEERKUTTY, SHAJIDA MANZIL,
10. C.VIJAYAN, T.C.31/1824,
11. C.SUNDARAN, T.C.31/1819,
12. P.NAZIMUDEEN, T.C.35/197,
13. S.SUDARSANAN, T.C.31/1735 (1),
14. A.M.HANEEFA, BANGLAVIL HOUSE,
15. A.SULAIMAN, T.C.35/345,
16. N.NIZAMUDEEN, SAJITHA MANZIL,
17. P.MOHAMMED HUSAIN, P.J.MANZIL,
18. A.NAZEER, PALLAM HOUSE,
19. M.THAJUDEEN, T.C.35/180,
20. A.ASHRAF, T.C.35/653,
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD WORKERS
3. SHRI.MANZOOR.S., S/O.SAINUDEEN
4. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
5. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR
6. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
For Respondent :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :03/02/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO.32889 OF 2009
............................................
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners allege that they are head load workers who had
been attending to the loading and unloading work at the go downs of
the Kerala State Ware housing Corporation and the Kerala State Civil
Supplies Corporation at Vallakadavu from 1980 onwards. According
to them, the fourth respondent registered the names of 33 headload
workers including the petitioners under Section 26A of the Kerala
Headload Workers Rules and they were issued with Ext.P4 identity
cards. In Ext.P4, the petitioners have been described as working in the
Kerala State Ware Housing go downs.
2. The third respondent had filed WP(C)1788 of 2008 before this
court challenging the issue of Ext.P4 identity cards to the petitioners
and others. This court disposed of the said writ petition by judgment
dated 21.1.2008, directing the Assistant Labour Officer, who was the
first respondent therein to initiate and complete proceedings under
Section 21 of the Kerala Head load Workers Act after affording an
Wpc 32889/09 2
opportunity of being heard to all concerned within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
3. Pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, it appears that the fourth
respondent had conducted conciliation proceedings but was not
successful in settling the dispute. Therefore, he had submitted a failure
report to the Deputy Labour Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereupon,
the Deputy Labour Officer, who is the Conciliation Officer under the
Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 has initiated proceedings under
Section 21(4) of the Act. He has passed Ext.P7 proceedings in which
he has found that the petitioners are persons who had not been issued
with identity cards in Form C by the Welfare Fund Board and
therefore they are not entitled to do loading and unloading work in the
area. Thereafter, for the purpose of initiating further action in the
matter, a report has been called for from the Assistant Labour Officer
in accordance with Section 26(4) of the Act with respect to the cards
issued to the petitioners. The said proceedings of the Deputy Labour
Officer evidenced herein by Ext.P7 was challenged by the petitioners
before the Appellate Authority under the Act. The appeal has been
Wpc 32889/09 3
disposed of by Ext.P8 proceedings. The appellate authority has found
that the godowns of the Warehousing Corporation and Civil Supplies
Corporation were not functioning at Vallakadavu during the year,
2002. Since the question as to the validity of identity cards was still
pending consideration of the Deputy Labour Officer, the appellate
authority found that there was no reason to interfere with the
proceedings that were pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
4. The counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 and P8 in this
writ petition.
5. The counsel for the third respondent points out that Ext.P7 is
not a final order, but that the proceedings are still to be completed. The
counsel for the second respondent also submits that since the
proceedings were not completed in accordance with Section 26(4) of
the Act, there are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P7 and P8 at this
stage. On the issue of final orders under Section 26(4) of the Act, it is
pointed out that the same is also appealable.
6. I have heard Adv.Gopakumar.R.Thaliyal for the petitioner,
Adv.Koshy George for second respondent and Adv.Smt.Mumtaz.S for
Wpc 32889/09 4
third respondent. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously.
7. I notice from Ext.P6 that a direction has been issued by this
court to the Assistant Labour Officer to initiate and complete
proceedings under Section 21 of the Act after affording an opportunity
to all concerned within a period of two months. Pursuant to the said
direction, though the Assistant Labour Officer had initiated steps to
settle the dispute, he was not successful in doing so. Therefore, as is
evident from Ext.P7, he has submitted a report to the Conciliation
Officer informing his inability to work out a settlement. On receipt of
such a report, the Conciliation Officer is empowered to conduct
conciliation and investigate the same and to do all that is necessary to
promote an amicable settlement of the dispute. If a settlement is not
arrived at, the Conciliation Officer has the authority to decide the
dispute or any matter in respect to which a settlement is not arrived at
and thereafter, he has to send a report to the appellate authority.
8. It is an admitted case that no report as contemplated by
Section 21(4) has been sent by the Conciliation Officer to the appellate
authority. A reading of Exts.P7 and P8 shows that the proceedings
Wpc 32889/09 5
under Section 21(4) of the Act are still remaining incomplete. Since no
final orders have been passed by the Deputy Labour Officer, who is the
Conciliation Officer, under Section 21(4) of the Act, it is not necessary
to interfere with Exts.P7 and P8 proceedings at this stage. I also notice
that the petitioner has a right of appeal to challenge any order that may
be passed under Section 21(4) of the Act, finally. The above being the
position, I do not think that Ext.P7 and P8 proceedings require
interference at this stage.
In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk