G.O. Joy vs The Kerala Headload Workers … on 31 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
G.O. Joy vs The Kerala Headload Workers … on 31 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16089 of 2005(M)


1. G.O. JOY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE

3. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.BABU KARUKAPPADATH, SC,KHLWWB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :31/05/2010

 O R D E R
                       S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                  ------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) No.16089 OF 2005
                  -------------------------------
             Dated this the 31st day of MAY, 2010


                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioner claims to be the headload worker registered

under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules as

evidenced by Ext.P1 identity card. According to the petitioner,

the petitioner was working in the place of his father-in-law who

was, on account of indifferent health, not working and was due to

retire on superannuation on 31.5.2005. The petitioner would

contend that under clause 6B of the Kerala Headload Workers

(Regulation of Employment Welfare) Scheme 1983, the 2nd

respondent is bound to assess the probable number of workers

that may be required additionally on account of retirement on

superannuation, death, disability, resignation, removal and

expansion of the Scheme and resolve to register such number of

additional workers in the committee after complying with the

procedure contemplated in sub rule (2) of clause 6B. The

petitioner complains that the second respondent is not taking

W.P.(c)No.16089/05 2

appropriate steps to comply with the said procedure. The

petitioner, therefore seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or order quashing and setting
aside Exhibits p-3,

b) A writ of mandamus, or any other writ,
order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to
fill up the vacancies in Pool 26A of Thrissur Local
Committee,

d) A writ of mandamus, or any other writ,
order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to
consider the petitioner to the existing vacancy and
permit him to continue till the vacancies are filled,

e) Declare that Clause 6B(2) of the Kerala
Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and
Welfare)Scheme, 1983 to the extent it stipulates
that a registered worker working in that area alone
can be considered for replenishment is arbitrary,
illegal and unconstitutional and…”

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner does not now press prayer (e) of the writ

petition and would be satisfied, if the second respondent takes

appropriate steps to fill up vacancies as contemplated under

clause 6B of the Scheme.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second

respondent, in which the contentions of the petitioner has been

controverted specifically in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 which read

thus:

W.P.(c)No.16089/05 3

“3. The claim of the petitioner that he
commenced the service as Headload worker
under Pool No.24A of Thrissur Local Committee
in the year 2000 is totally incorrect and
baseless. It is submitted that the petitioner
has never work under Pool No.24A or under
any other pool under Thrissur Local
Committee, Thrissur. It is true that
Sri.K.A.Devassy is a registered Headload
worker with Reg.No.24A/6 under the Thrissur
Local Committee. However the contention that
the petitioner was inducted in the place of
Sri.K.A.Devassy is totally incorrect and
baseless. There is no provision or procedure
for inducting any other person in the place of a
registered Headload worker.

4. It is also incorrect to say that
Sri.K.A.Devassy has become unwell. Such an
information was never conveyed to the
respondents. Moreover from the records
available with the 2nd respondent it is clear
that Sri.K.A.Devassy has been regularly
attending the work till 31.5.2005 and he has
been receiving salary regularly. True copy of
the attendance register in respect of Pool
No.24A & B under Thrissur Local Committee for
the period from January 2005 to May 2005 is
produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1

(a). A true copy of the acquaintance roll
relating to pool No.A & B under Thrissur Local
Committee for the period from January 2005 to
May 2005 is produced herewith and marked as
Exhibit-R1(b). It is clear from Ext.R1(a)& R1

(b) that Sri.K.Devassy has been regularly
attending the work as Headload worker and
receiving wages for the same. It is further
clear from those documents that the petitioner
has never attended loading and unloading work
or received wages from the Kerala Headload
Workers Welfare Board.

5. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx

6. So also the further contention of the
petitioner that there are a number of vacancies
of Headload workers under the 2nd respondent

W.P.(c)No.16089/05 4

and the respondents are not filling up the same
under clause 6B(1) of the Kerala Headload
Workers (Regulation of Employment and
Welfare) Scheme 1983 is totally incorrect and
misleading. There is no specific notified
vacancies in the pool as sought to be projected
by the petitioner. It is submitted that the
pools were formed, when the scheme was
implemented in the area, registering all the
then Headload workers under clause 6A of the
scheme. However there were drastic
reduction in loading and unloading work in the
area. So though some of the workers were
removed from the roll on superannuation,
death etc. the committee has not found it
necessary to engage new workers. As already
submitted it is only because of the reduction in
work in the area and not because of the
pressure of the regular workers as contented
by the petitioner in the W.P. It is respectfully
submitted that under Clause 6B of the scheme,
the committee need assess the probable
number of workers required additionally in the
locality only if it is satisfied that more numbers
of workers are necessary. As already
submitted the committee has not taken such a
decision only because it is satisfied that the
Headload work in the area has been
considerably reduced because of the reduction
in business in the area. It is respectfully
submitted that Ext.P2 representation has been
answered through Ext.P3.”

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

The question as to whether there is enough work available

despite superannuation, death, disability, resignation etc. of

existing workers is a pure question of fact. The second

W.P.(c)No.16089/05 5

respondent has specifically stated in the counter affidavit that

there was drastic reduction in loading and unloading work in

the area. The petitioner has no case that overlooking any valid

claim of the petitioner for registration under clause 6B of the

Scheme, any other headload worker has been included by the

second respondent in the pool. That being so, the remedy of

the petitioner lies in applying for registration as headload

worker under clause 6B of the Scheme as and when the second

respondent publishes notification inviting applications for the

same. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ

petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

acd

W.P.(c)No.16089/05 6

W.P.(c)No.16089/05 7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *