Allowed

Marikar Automobiles and Services Private Limited v. Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019WP(C)/11677/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that unloading two-wheelers by riding them down ramps is not headload work under the Kerala Headload Workers Act due to the need for driving skills. The petitioner can engage skilled workers, and the police must protect them from union obstruction.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to provide sufficient protection against disruption by union members unloading two-wheelers.

Marikar Automobiles and Services Private Limited Vs… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.11677 of 2019

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MARIKAR AUTOMOBILES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MARIKAR BUILDINGS, 24/451, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER - SALES, ANAS MUHAMMAD

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE SRI.T.C.KRISHNA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY,KOCHI - 683 513

¶13

2 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KALAMASSERY SUB OFFICE, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 683 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER

¶14

3 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 4 HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC), CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB OTHER PRESENT: SRI P.P THAJUDHEEN SR GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.11677 of 2019

JUDGMENT

V.G.ARUN, J.

The petitioner is an authorised dealer of two wheelers manufactured by M/s.Benelli India. According to the petitioner, the two wheelers manufactured by Benelli are highly sophisticated and expensive. The two wheelers are brought to the petitioner's show-room/yard in specially covered trailer trucks and are brought down by driving/riding the vehicles on specially made ramps by skilled mechanics trained for the job. Respondents 3 and 4 are the trade unions representing the headload workers of the area. According to the petitioner, when the first lot of vehicles was being offloaded on 18.3.2019, workers belonging to respondents 3 and 4 unions intervened with the demand that they should be entrusted with the work and the petitioner was compelled to

¶21

W.P.(C) No.11677 of 2019

¶22

¶23

succumb to their demand. Apprehending such illegal intervention and disruption of work in future, the petitioner has approached the jurisdictional police seeking protection. The request having failed to evoke any positive response, the writ petition is filed.

¶24

Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unloading of two wheelers from trucks by riding them down a ramp does not constitute loading and unloading work requiring the service of a headload worker. Reference is made to the definition of “headload worker” under Section 2 (m) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. Reliance is placed on Ext.P1, a Division Bench judgment in W.P.(C) No.14496 of 2011, which according to the learned counsel was rendered under similar circumstances.

¶25

Even though notice was sent to respondents 3 and 4

¶26

W.P.(C) No.11677 of 2019

¶27

¶28

through special messenger, the notice has been returned with the endorsement 'refused'. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board submits that the area in question is a scheme covered area and that even if the unloading of motor cycles from trucks, by riding them down the ramps, does not fall within the purview of loading and unloading work, the conduct of business by the petitioner require unloading of spare parts and other materials and that such work has to be carried on by the members of the recognised headload workers pool.

¶29

The question considered by the Division Bench in Ext P1 judgment was as to whether unloading of two wheelers and three wheelers from big carriers (trailer trucks) by driving/riding the vehicles down a ramp is headload work or not and as to whether persons doing such work can be termed

¶30

W.P.(C) No.11677 of 2019

¶31

¶32

as headload workers. After careful scrutiny of the relevant provisions, the Division Bench held that unloading of two wheelers and three wheelers or four wheelers from big trailer trucks by driving/riding down the vehicles through ramps, will not come within the purview of the works to be carried out by a headload worker, as defined under Section 2(m) of the Headload Workers Act, since such work require skill of driving/riding and proper authority of a driving licence. It was held that the workers employed for doing such work will not come within the purview of the definition of 'headload worker'.

¶33

We respectfully agree with the findings in Ext.P1 judgment. The process of riding down two wheelers from trailer trucks require skill and expertise. Only persons specially trained and holding a valid two-wheeler driving

¶34

W.P.(C) No.11677 of 2019

¶35

¶36

licence can undertake such work. The persons engaged for doing such specialised work, cannot be termed as headload workers. Therefore, the petitioner has every right to engage its own specialist/skilled workers for doing the job. Respondents 3 and 4 cannot cause any obstruction to that work on the ground that they are the registered headload workers of the area. As far as the loading and unloading of spare parts and materials, other than motor cycles, are concerned the members of respondents 3 and 4 have a legitimate claim. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if and when the materials other than motorcycles are unloaded, the registered headload workers belonging respondents 3 and 4 unions would be engaged.

¶37

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the first respondent to provide sufficient protection, in the event

¶38

W.P.(C) No.11677 of 2019

¶39

¶40

of there being any disruption to the unloading of two wheelers at the premises of the petitioner due to the intervention of the members of respondents 3 and 4. It is made clear that the benefit of this judgment will not inure to the petitioner in the unloading of materials other than motorcycles. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Scl/17.6

W.P.(C) No.11677 of 2019