The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the registration granted to two individual head load workers. The Court distinguished a prior precedent regarding attached workers, holding that settlements do not preclude individual applications for registration under Rule 26A.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/9TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 22572 of 2009 (N)
PETITIONER(S):
THRISSUR DISTRICT LOADING AND UNLOADING GENERAL WORKERS UNION, PAMBADY UNIT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT SECRETARY RAJAN S/O.SEKHARAN, AGED 33 YEARS, KOOTTALACOMPANIPADI HOUSE, PANIYARKODE P.O., THIRUVILWAMALA THRISSUR DT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
ADDL. R6
WP(C).No. 22572 of 2009 (N)
-2-
ADDL.R6 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB ADDL.6 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD, BY ADV. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ KUNJACHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 22572 of 2009 (N)
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
P5TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINTER FILED BY AJITH KUMAR, EX-SECRETARY, BEFORE R1 DATED 22.1.08
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Union of head load workers in the Pambady area in Thiruvilwamala affiliated to the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), who challenged the registration granted to respondents 4 and 5 under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act'). Respondents 4 and 5 are said to be affiliated to the 3rd respondent Union.
employees, whose names were shown in the list appended to the Memorandum of Settlement, were
WP(C).22572/09
2
allowed to continue the loading and unloading work in the area which, admittedly is a Scheme notified area.
arrived at, the applications of respondents 4 and 5 were taken up and registration granted in violation of the terms of settlement, is the contention. The Assistant Labour Officer (ALO) being only an Officer who could have recorded the terms of settlement, has decided on the question of grant of registration without any agreement to that effect, is the contention. The petitioner also has a contention that they were not participated in the enquiry and despite receipt of notice, sent in the wrong address, before appearance could be effected, the matter was taken up and decided in their absence. An appeal was filed from the said registration to the District Labour Officer (DLO) which ended in Ext.P4. The challenge against Ext.P4 is essentially urged on the ground of lack of
WP(C).22572/09
3
jurisdiction of the ALO to grant registration in the absence of a settlement.
WP(C).22572/09
4
accepted. Hence, what survives for consideration is to the interference to be caused on Ext.P4 order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
otherwise. The DLO has detailed the circumstances in which Ext.P1 settlement was arrived at. Undisputedly there was a law and order situation where head load workers, being members of different trade unions, were in a conflict, as to the work to be allotted in the area. A conciliation was called by the ALO in which it has been decided that, only 56 workers who had registration, would be participated in the head load work in the area. However, though the said card holders were specifically noticed in the list appended to the Memorandum of Settlement, the terms of settlement also indicated that those who did not have cards would apply for the same.
WP(C).22572/09
5
applications taken up by the ALO with respect to respondents 4 and 5 were those filed on 28.01.2008, just prior to the settlement arrived at. Ext.P4 refers to the cause of action for the dispute on the ground that many persons who did not
have prior registration under the Act, being participated in the work in a Scheme notified area.
that Ext.P1 precludes any further registration to be granted in the area; which a head load worker, who has been carrying on such loading and unloading work in the area, would be entitled to seek under the provisions of the Act. Registration is an exercise which has to be carried out under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981 (for short 'the Rules') which is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the ALO and not the DLO. The DLO in such circumstances, is the Appellate Authority from an order of the ALO, as is evidenced from Rule
6
WP(C).22572/09
26A of the Rules. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the registration is in violation of the terms of the agreement cannot be countenanced. Obviously the contention is raised on the misapprehension that the order of the ALO is under Section 21. On the contrary, the registration granted is under Rule 26A.
30.01.2008, permitting only 56 employees who had valid registration under the Rules and valid identity cards under the Scheme to be participated in the loading and unloading work of the area. However, the said settlement cannot be said to be one for all time and it cannot preclude a loading and unloading worker from seeking for registration under the Rules and in doing so, also applying for a valid identity card under the Scheme. Hence, the order granting registration to respondents 4 and 5 cannot be said to be an order passed under Section 21 of the Act which specifically refers to a
WP(C).22572/09
7
dispute. The ALO who has granted the registration, has proceeded under rule 26A and no infirmity can be found as to the jurisdiction exercised by the said Officer under the provisions of the Rules. An appeal too has been preferred by the Union before the Appellate Authority which has been rejected by Ext.P4.
WP(C).22572/09
8
under the Act have decided in favour of inclusion of two workers and granted registration as per the Rules.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ
petition would stand dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge
Mrcs
//True Copy//
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a settlement permitting only 56 registered workers to engage in loading work precludes further registrations under Rule 26A.
Whether the Assistant Labour Officer had jurisdiction to grant registration without prior settlement under Section 21 of the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muhammed Shafeek v. District Labour OfficerDistinguished¶46
Muhammed Shafeek v. District Labour Officer (2015 (1) KLT 314)
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaApplied¶49
Thrissur District Loading and Unloading General Workers Union, Pambady Unit
District Labour Officer, Ayanthole
Assistant Labour Officer, Vadakanchery
Head Load Workers Union CITU, Irinjalakkuda Unit
M.C. Jayan
K. Vinodkumar
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
