IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 17483 of 2002(F)
1. HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
... Respondent
2. KURIAN JOSEPH,ARACKATHALAYIL HOUSE,
3. REJI KURIAN,KOOZHIYIL HOUSE,
4. P.R.SASI,PONNATTITHALACKAL HOUSE,
5. V.P.REJI,KALLAMBURAM HOUSE,
6. P.C.JOSE,PUTHUSSERIYIL HOUSE,
7. N.M.BABU,NELLICKATHADATHIL HOUSE,
8. SIBI SEBASTIAN,ARACKTHALAYIL HOUSE,
9. K.M.CHERIAN,KARINILKUMTHADATHIL HOUSE,
10. REJI THOMAS,PONNATTITHALACKAL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent :SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER, SC,KHLWWB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :05/01/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
O.P. No. 17483 OF 2002 F
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a union of head load workers of the Parolickal
area of Athirampuzha Sub Committee under the Kerala Head Load
Workers Act and the scheme framed thereunder. The petitioner is
aggrieved by Ext.P2 resolution of the Athirampuzha and Ettumanoor
Advisory Samithies of Kottayam local committee of Kerala Head Load
Workers’ Welfare Fund Board, whereby on the ground that there is
considerable increase in the head load work in the area in question, it
has been decided to include respondents 2 to 10 as head load workers
of the Parolickal area for doing loading and unloading work and to
include them in the Athirampuzha local committee of Head Load
Workers’ Welfare Fund Board. One of the contentions in the original
petition is that because the committee itself took the decision, the
petitioner has been deprived of its right of appeal under Rule 6E of the
Kerala Head Load Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Welfare)
Scheme, 1983. In answer to this, the counsel for the 1st respondent
submits that by virtue of Clauses 16 and 19 of the Kerala Head Load
Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, the
OP.17483/02
2
committee has power to direct the inclusion of head load workers in a
particular area and it is in exercise of such power that Ext.P2 order has
been passed. On a reading of Clause 16 and 19, I find that Ext.P2
order cannot be found fault with on the said ground mentioned in the
original petition.
2. On merits I find that the committee has passed Ext.P2 order
on a finding that in the area in question there is considerable increase in
work. Whether there is increase in work or not is a pure question of
fact, which cannot be interfered with by me in exercise of my jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, I make it clear
that while giving work to respondents 2 to 10, the 1st respondent shall
ensure that the work available to the already existing workers of the
area shall not be in any way reduced.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)
aks
S. SIRI JAGAN , J.
OP No.17483/02 F
J U D G M E N T
5th January, 2007