The Kerala Head Load Workers … vs State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38251 of 2010(F)


1. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :03/01/2011

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
                      P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
                   -------------------------------------------
                    W.P(C).No.38251 OF 2010
                  -------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011

                              JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.This writ petition is filed by the Palakkad District Committee of

the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board,

represented by the Chairman of the District Committee. Going

by the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and

Rules, and the schemes framed there under, the Kerala

Headload workers Welfare Fund Board is a statutory board. It

carries out statutory duties under the Act. It is also bestowed

with certain power to give effect to carry out the scheme.

2.The complaint of the petitioner in its gist is that while the area

in question is covered by Ext.P1 scheme, there are certain

persons with criminal backgrounds who forcefully deprive the

registered headload workers of their legitimate work. The

case as projected before us during arguments is that when

loads of different materials, including agricultural inputs come

WPC.38251/10

2

to the market, the persons who are not registered headload

workers forcefully take over the unloading operations. The

Board stand to espouse the cause of the registered headload

workers and says that those workers, in terms of the

provisions of the Act and scheme, have the exclusive right to

be involved in headload work in relation to establishments

covered by the scheme since the area in question is covered by

the statutory scheme. We are clear in our mind that the

liability under the Act and the scheme gets fastened, at the

first instance on establishments which permit or require

unregistered workers to do the work. At the same time, the

situation pointed out may lead to different law and order

situation between the registered workers and those persons

who have not registered under the Kerala Headload Workers

Act and Rules and scheme. In such event, there could be a

confrontation which would be against public interest. Having

regard to the powers of the Board in terms of the Act and

scheme, the Board has necessarily to be only a spectator to

such a situation and should proceed through appeals or

WPC.38251/10

3

proceedings before the competent court only in relation to

establishments governed by the provisions of the scheme.

3.The grievance voiced by the writ petitioner Board needs to be

attended to by the police only to ensure that there is no law

and order problem. The Board or the registered workers will

be entitled to work out any remedies as may be required in

terms of the Act and scheme against any establishment which

permits or requires any unregistered workers to carry out the

loading and unloading works. Learned Government Pleader

submits that one picket of police has been posted in the entire

pool area and law and order will be strictly maintained. We

record this submission and order the writ petition accordingly.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

Sd/-

P.S.GOPINATHAN,
Judge.

kkb.5/1.