Dismissed

All Kerala Distributors Association v. Chairman, Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board

Kerala HC18 Dec 2020WP(C)/28323/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Distributors Association seeking protection from headload workers. Relying on previous orders, the Court directed the petitioner to approach authorities with specific details of obstruction rather than seeking a blanket direction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to approach respondents with specific details of obstruction to warrant action.

All Kerala Distributors Association Vs Chairman… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.28323 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, SJ TRADE LINKS, 9/421-A-B-C, MAVUMKUNNU ROAD, PANBAZAR, THIROOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPREENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VALSAM MENON

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

¶11

CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM- 676 505

¶12

2 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM- 680 664

¶13

3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM- 676 505

¶14

4 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAKKARAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 505

¶15

5 HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), MALAPPURAM UNIT, KUNNUMMEL, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-676 505

¶16

6 INTUC, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, NILAMBUR P.O, MALAPPURAM REPREENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-676 542

¶17

7 AITUC, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, CPI OFFICE, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM REPREENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-676 505

¶18

8 BHARATH MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE,

¶19

WP(C).No.28323 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

CHIRAKKAL, TANUR, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-676 302

¶22

SRI THOMAS ABRAHAM SC SRI KP HARISH SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No.28323 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The instant writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶28

Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the first respondent to implement Exhibit P 2 judgement rendered by this Honourable Court.

¶29

Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to afford adequate and sufficient police protection for the smooth conduct of the business, supply of consumer goods distributed through delivery vehicles engaging their own employees attached to the vehicles without the intervention of the respondents 5 to 8 or their members and

¶30

Declare that the respondents 5 to 8 or their members having no right or authority to interfere with the peaceful work of the members of the petitioner

¶31

It appears that the Kodungallor Unit of the All Kerala

¶32

Distributors Association had earlier approached this Court complaining that

¶33

the distribution of consumer goods in delivery vans and other vehicles were being obstructed by Headload workers of the area. By Exhibit P2 judgment,

¶34

WP(C).No.28323 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

their Lordships of the Division Bench, taking note of the law laid down by a larger Bench of this Court in Theresa Jose v Sub Inspector of Police [2015 (1) KLT 485] disposed of the matter directing the Police to grant protection if any obstruction is caused. Though the matter was taken up before the Apex Court by the Board, the SLP was dismissed. The petitioner contends that the benefits of the above judgment should be extended to the petitioner as well.

¶37

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that not even a single instance of interference by headload workers have been stated by the petitioner herein in Exhibit P5 and P6 representations. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is bound to follow the principles laid down therein and if any legitimate complaint is received proper action shall be taken.

¶38

The learned Government pleader also submitted that this is an experimental litigation without any cause of action. It is further submitted that if any of the members of the association faces interference by headload workers, it is for them to approach the authorities concerned or the Police and necessary action shall be taken.

¶39

I have considered the submissions.

¶40

In Exhibit P2 judgment, this Court while considering the cause

¶41

WP(C).No.28323 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

of the Kodungallor Unit of the All Kerala Distributors Association had occasion to hold that the workers of the pool constituted under the Scheme framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act cannot have any claim for the incidental work of loading and unloading in their establishment of the members of the petitioners therein or at the delivery points. It is further held that the members of the Distributors Association are entitled to deliver the goods distributed by them through their own workers. The petitioner contends that the members of their association are also entitled to the protection.

¶44

I find that the petitioner had submitted a complaint before the District Labour Officer and by Exhibit P4 communication they have been informed that if any interference is caused to the functioning of the establishments, they can approach the Police for assistance. In Exhibit P6 complaint before the District Police Chief, the petitioner has stated that one of their employees were attacked by some person and based on his complaint a crime has been registered. However, no other specifics are stated in the complaint. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondents that this is an experimental litigation cannot be brushed aside. The main prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to implement the directions of this Court. If the directions are violated the

¶45

WP(C).No.28323 OF 2020

¶46

¶47

petitioner therein can very well approach the authorities concerned and they are duty bound to implement the same.

¶48

In that view of the matter, it is for the petitioner to approach the respondents 2 to 4, if any obstruction is caused by giving specific details of the member whose work was obstructed by the headload workers and the details of the obstructors. If the complaint is found genuine, and action is warranted, the respondents shall look into the same and take appropriate action

¶49

With the above directions, this Writ petition will stand dismissed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

¶54

WP(C).No.28323 OF 2020

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.38742/2016 DATED 20/06/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP NO.26942/2017 DATED 4/4/2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5/2/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/3/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.

¶59

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶60

NIL

All Kerala Distributors Association v. Chairman, Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All Kerala Distributors Association v. Chairman, Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Jayan Vs Suryanarayanan

J.Sugathan Vs the Village Officer

Mohammed Roshan.E.a. Vs the Director, National Institute of Open Schooling

Eldho Paul, Vs the Secretary

Mavelikkara Taluk Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 707, Vs State of Kerala

Jameela.M.M Vs Nayarambalam Service Co. Operative Bank Ltd.