Dismissed

Kalamassery General Workers Union v. Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board

Kerala HC7 Jun 2019WP(C)/14027/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by a workers' union seeking police protection and setting aside cancellation of 6A cards. The Court held that union rivalry cannot bar workers from assigned work and that the Board's actions were justifiable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for police protection is dismissed; observations made regarding wage share of denied workers and validity of 6A card cancellation.

Kalamassery General Workers Union Vs Kerala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No. 14027 of 2019

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

KALAMASSERY GENERAL WORKER'S UNION I.N.T.U.C. REG.NO.154/1984, V.P.MARAKKAR BHAVAN, TOLL GATE, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN-24, PIN-682024, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRESIDENT SHRI. SHERIF MARAKKAR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD

¶13

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDINGS, T.D.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682035, REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHAIRMAN.

¶14

2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.

¶15

3 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD, SUB OFFICE, KALAMASSERY, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN682033, REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHAIRMAN.

¶16

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA RURAL, NEAR SUB JAIL, ALUVA. 680 006

¶17

5 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, KALAMASSERY.

¶18

6 M.M.SHIHAAB, S/O.MOIDU, MUNDAKKATHAZHAM HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY (N) P.O., PIN-682024.

¶19

7 M.Y.AYOOB, S/O.YUSUF, MADAPPAATT HOUSE, ELOOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., PIN-683501.

¶20

WP(C).No. 14027 of 2019

¶21

¶22

8 K.S.NISSAR, S/O.SIDDIQ, CHANDRATHIL HOUSE, DESAM P.O., ALUVA683103.

¶23

9 K.U.NISHAD, S/O.UMMER, KADOORAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY (N) P.O., PIN-682024.

¶24

10 K.M.SHIHAB, S/O.MAJEED, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, ELOOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., PIN-683501.

¶25

11 K.H.SUJEEB, S/O.HASSAN, PEECHINGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY (N) P.O., PIN-682024.

¶26

BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB SMT.O.H.NAZEEBA

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WP(C).No. 14027 of 2019

¶29

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶32

The petitioner - Union, is before this court claiming adequate police protection from the alleged illegal activities of respondents 6 to 11. The petitioner also seeks setting aside of Ext.P9 issued by the 3^rd respondent - Board. It is also brought to our notice that, subsequently, 6A registration card of the Pool Leader of Pool No.2, constituted for the area, was canceled as per Ext.P21.

¶33

Respondents 6 to 11 appeared and submit that they were also persons who had valid 6A cards issued by the Board and were members of Pool No.2 as also the petitioner Union. When they shifted their allegiance from the petitioner Union, the members of the petitioner Union refused to permit them to work in the pool. It is also clear from the records available that the respondents 6 to 11 were prevented from signing the attendance register upon which Ext.P9 was issued by the Board. There were also repeated communications issued to the Pool Leader to permit the respondents 6 to 11 to peacefully work with the other pool members, which were not complied with. Hence the drastic

¶34

¶35

WP(C).No. 14027 of 2019

¶36

action of cancellation of licence, as per Ext.P21, which could be challenged before the District Committee.

¶37

The petitioner has a claim that Pool No.2 was constituted for the petitioner union and none other, who is not a member of the petitioner union, can work in the said pool. The petitioner relies on Ext.P3 to assert that Pool No.2 and the work/area assigned to that pool, is exclusively for their union. A reading of Ext.P3 indicates no such exclusive allotment to a union. Nor do we find any statutory scheme to so constitute a pool of workers on the basis of their union allegiance. Ext.P3 resolved a dispute between Pool No.'s: 1 &2 and there is absolutely no reference to any union. The contention that the pool workers invite a disability to continue on their shifting union allegiance is untenable.

¶38

We find Ext.P9 to be appropriate in the circumstances as pleaded by the respondents 6 to 11 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent Board. 6A registration cards issued under the Kerala Headload Workers Scheme are to the workers individually and the allegiance to a particular Union is not at all significant insofar as the work assigned to a particular pool. Union rivalries cannot lead to a particular person

¶39

¶40

WP(C).No. 14027 of 2019

¶41

being prohibited from participating in the work, assigned to a pool. An intra-union issue which led to denial of work to respondents 6 to 11 was correctly met with by Ext.P9 order, according to us. We do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9. Any allegation of misconduct at the union level does not affect the membership of the pool and none can be disqualified merely at the sole behest of the Union. Any misconduct alleged will have to be brought to the notice of the statutory authorities and only then could a disqualification be threatened; that too by those authorities.

¶42

Ext.P9 was specific and directed the pool leader to permit the 6 pool members to participate in the work. It also warned that any denial would result in the wages being shared by the six workers kept out of work, despite they having not worked; since they were physically prevented from marking attendance. The pool leader however continued the illegality and justified his conduct with Exts.P10 & P11. Again the Board reiterated this stand with Exts.P13 & P18, which were also defiantly ignored. This obstinacy on the part of the Pool Leader has culminated in Ext.P21. We find the action of the Chairman of the Board to be eminently justifiable in the above

¶43

¶44

WP(C).No. 14027 of 2019

¶45

circumstances. We also notice the petitioner having raised allegations against a named District Committee member without making him a party to the writ petition. We find that such allegations, as we found the other contentions of the petitioner to be untenable and mischievous.

¶46

If the respondents 6 to 11 have been denied work, with respect to their payments, the Board shall take appropriate measures, if not already taken. They shall be allowed their share of the wages from the common pool, on days they were prohibited from marking attendance. In the circumstances, the petitioner Union having prevented the other workers from participating in the work, we do not think there is any defect in Ext.P21 also, which was a proceeding initiated against the Pool Leader. The Pool Leader without reference to any union affiliation has to ensure that all the workers under him are participated in the work. Ext.P21 can be challenged in an appeal as provided in the statute. It is made clear that dehors union affiliation the respondents 6 to 11 shall be allowed to be included in the work assigned to Pool No.2, so long as they continue in the pool with a Rule 6A/6B membership.

¶47

WP(C).No. 14027 of 2019

¶48

¶49

The writ petition for police protection is dismissed, but with the above observations. Parties to suffer their respective costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

shg

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 14027 of 2019

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 31.5.1984 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFILIATION CERTIFICATE DATED 23.7.1985 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL I.N.T.U.C. OFFICE, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER C7921/15 DATED 22.12.2015 ISSUED BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.09.2018 BY HON: HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.31086/2018.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.5.2019 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENTS 6 TO 11 TO THE PETITIONER UNION.
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 13.5.2019 OF THE PETITIONER'S UNION'S GENERAL BODY MEETING.
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.5.2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER UNION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNION'S POOL LEADER.
EXHIBIT P10	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.5.2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER UNION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.5.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNION BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/5/2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER UNION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶62

WP(C).No. 14027 of 2019

¶63

¶64

EXHIBIT P13	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/5/2019 ISSUED BY THE LETTER DATED 20/5/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNION
EXHIBIT P14	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/5/2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER UNION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/5/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNION BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16	THE TRUE COPY OF THE HOSPITAL CERTIFICATE DATED 21/5/2019 ISSUED TO THE INJURED WORKER SHAMEER
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE THE HOSPITAL CERTIFICATE DATED 21/5/2019 ISSUED TO THE INJURED WORKER NIZAR.M.M.
EXHIBIT P18	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/5/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE POOL LEADER
EXHIBIT P19	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/5/2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER UNION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20	THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 29/5/2019 GIVEN BY THE POOL LEADER OF THE PETITIONER UNION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 1/6/2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXT.R6(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER ISSUED BY
	THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.5.2019 TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAMASSERY

Kalamassery General Workers Union v. Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalamassery General Workers Union v. Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhara, Vs the District Police Chief

Leelamma Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

K.Rukhiya, Vs District Superintendent of Police

Biyyathu Chalil Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sugesh Chandran Vs Commissioner of Police

The Principal, Kmct Medical College Vs the Additiional Director General of Police