IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 88 of 2011(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- LATHEEFA BEEVI, LATHEEFA TILES DEPOT, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005. 2. CONVENOR, INTUC, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD-695541. 3. CONVENOR, CITU, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD-695541. 4. CONVENOR, AITUC, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD-695541. 5. CONVENOR, INTUC(I), MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD-695541. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 88 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a dealer in building materials. She was initially running her establishment at Mukkolackal in the year 2003. She had obtained registration for three headload workers to do the loading and unloading work in her establishment. When two of the worker discontinued employment, she engaged three fresh headload workers. The said three workers thereafter moved the Assistant Labour Officer for registration as headload workers under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. Those applications were rejected. Later, two headload workers who had left the service of the petitioner were re-engaged. By then, the petitioner also shifted her business from Mukkolackal to Nedumangad Market junction. The engagement of the former employees led to a dispute, which in turn led to the filing of W.P.(C) No.24575 of 2008 in this Court for police protection to run the business. In that writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court passed Ext.P1 interim order which reads as follows: “The petitioner is running a shop dealing in building materials. She submits, she was engaging three registered head load workers to do the loading/unloading work in her establishment. WPC No.88/2011 2 Their identity cards are Exhibits P4 to P6. When two of them discontinued their employment with her, she engaged three fresh head load workers and moved the Assistant Labour Officer for registration under Section 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules. The petitioner submits, those applications were rejected and two of the workers who deserted her earlier covered by Exhibits P5 and P6 identity cards have come back and they are willing to work with the petitioner. The petitioner proposes to engage only those workmen with identity cards Exhibits P4 to P6. But, the local head load workers represented by respondents 1 to 3 are causing obstruction. In the above background, this Writ Petition is filed seeking appropriate direction to the police to grant her protection to engage registered head load workers mentioned above. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition. They have produced the order of the Assistant Labour Officer rejecting the applications of the head load workers who were proposed to be employed by the writ petitioner. In that order it was found that the petitioner is not maintaining the various registers as provided under the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules. It is one of the reasons for rejection of their applications. 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that according to the information collected by the police, there are no attached head load workers for the petitioner. We also heard the learned counsel appearing for the additional 6th respondent. 4. It is common case that the area in question is a scheme covered area. Therefore, the attached workmen of the petitioner should also be registered head load workers under the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules. Prima facie, going by the materials on record, it would appear that the petitioner has three registered head load workers covered by Exhibits P4 to P6 identity cards, who are willing to work with her. If the petitioner is engaging them and anybody causes obstruction, she may inform the police. In that event, the police shall remove the obstruction. But, this will not enable the petitioner to engage any unregistered head load worker. If there is any additional work or she requires additional hands as a result of leave or disability of existing workmen to attend duty on a particular day, she shall engage workmen from the local pool for doing the loading/unloading work. If respondents 1 to 3 have any grievance against the engagement of the workmen covered by WPC No.88/2011 3 Exhibits P4 to P6 identity cards, they may move the statutory authority under the Head Load Workers Act and establish their right. The prima facie, finding made will not in any manner fetter the statutory authority from adjudicating the claim of the Unions. If there is any decision of the statutory authority in favour of the workmen, the direction to grant protection issued above will be subject to such orders. 2. Later, the writ petition itself was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment maintaining the interim order. As directed by this Court in Ext.P1 interim order and Ext.P2 judgment, the registered headload workers of the locality moved the District Labour Officer. After hearing the petitioner and the said workers, the District Labour Officer passed Ext.P3 order dated 21.12.2010 holding that the registered headload workers of the pool alone are entitled to do the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order. In the alternative she seeks a direction to the first respondent to keep in abeyance Ext.P3 till the petitioner files an appeal and it is disposed of. 3. I heard Sri.N.Muraleedharan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Koshy George, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board and Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. Ext.P3 is an order passed under sub-section (4) of WPC No.88/2011 4 section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. Under sub section (6) thereof an appeal lies to the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, the appellate authority notified by the Government. The petitioner thus has an effective and meaningful alternate remedy. Sub section (8) of section 21 of the Act states that the appellate authority shall not stay the operation of the decision of the conciliation officer pending its decision on the appeal except for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. The appellate authority can therefore say the operation of the decision of the conciliation officer. In the light of the statutory provisions, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should invoke the appellate remedy and move the appellate authority for interim reliefs. The appellate authority can grant an interim order, if the petitioner makes out good and sufficient reasons for the grant of an interim order. By Ext.P1 interim order which governs the rights of parties (by virtue of Ext.P2 judgment) this Court had held that the petitioner can engage attached workers only till the dispute is resolved by the Labour Officer under the Kerala Healdload Workers Act. In view of the fact that the conciliation officer has decided the issue against the petitioner, the interim order granted by this Court in Ext.P1 order WPC No.88/2011 5 ceases to operate. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that it would not be just and proper for this Court to pass an interim order regulating the rights of parties contrary to the decision of the Division Bench in Ext.P2 judgment. Further, the petitioner has not till date, filed an appeal before the appellate authority. I am therefore of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal within the period of limitation prescribed in the Act and moving for interim orders, the appellate authority shall consider the application for interim relief expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date on which an application for interim relief is filed before the appellate authority. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.88/2011 6 WPC No.88/2011 7