IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17447 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SREEKANTAN NAIR, CONVENOR, INTUC,POTTAYIL MALAYAM,THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. G.HARIHARAN, CONVENOR, CITU, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHIBU, CONVENOR, BMS UNIT, VIZHAVOOR MALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SRI.DIPU.R., SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS, SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,NEYYATTINKARA. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. N.BINU,PROPRIETOR, B.B.ANAND HOLLOW BRICKS, PERUKAVU P.O.,PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.17447 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are office bearers of registered trade unions of Head load workers, who have been granted registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 and the Rules thereunder. Many of the members of the unions of the petitioners have been granted identity cards also. 2. The fourth respondent is running a Hollow Bricks Manufacturing Unit in the name and style “M/s. B.B.Anand Hollow bricks”, Perukavu, Peyad, Thiruvananthapuram. The said unit comes within the area of operation of the Venkoor unit of the petitioner union and therefore the petitioners claim that the members of their union alone are legally entitled to do all the loading and unloading works in the fourth respondent's establishment. However, the fourth respondent started engaging his own employees which was objected to by the members of the union. The fourth respondent then filed WP(C) 13911 of 2008 before this court, claiming police protection for his unit. Wpc 17447/2010 2 However, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the third respondent, Assistant Labour Officer, Neyyattinkara to settle the dispute and if no settlement was possible, to refer the dispute to the second respondent, the District Labour Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. The said judgment is Ext.P2. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the second respondent passed an order Ext.P3, holding that the workers of the petitioner unit were entitled to do the loading and unloading works of the fourth respondent's establishment. Ext.P3 order was challenged by the fourth respondent before the first respondent, who is the appellate authority under the Act. The first respondent has passed Ext.P4 order setting aside Ext.P3. According to the petitioners, Ext.P4 is unsustainable being violative of the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act and the Rules. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the Head Load Workers Act and the Scheme thereunder are applicable to the area where the fourth respondent is carrying on his brick making activity. Therefore, the Head Load work of his establishment can be done only by the petitioners. The petitioners being unions whose members are all Wpc 17447/2010 3 persons who have been issued with identity cards under the Act and Rules, the owner had no right to engage his own labour for carrying out his work. 5. A reading of Ext.P4 order shows that the first respondent has considered all the contentions of the petitioners, the relevant provisions of law as well as the decisions of this court. The various contentions of the petitioners have also been elaborately considered and found against them. Particular reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of this court in Raghavan V. Superintendent of Police (1998(2) KLT 732). The first respondent has, after properly appreciating the dictum laid down by this court in various decisions on the point, concluded the issue in the following words:- “ In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court in so many cases I hold that the appellant can engage his own workers for the loading and unloading works in his establishment. It is also decided that such engagement should be in accordance with the provisions under Rule 26A”. Wpc 17447/2010 4 6. It is clear from the above that the first respondent has directed the fourth respondent to comply with the stipulations in Rule 26A while engaging his own workers for the loading and unloading works in his establishment. The counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity or illegality in the order Ext.P4, or in the findings of the first respondent. 7. I see no grounds to interfere with Ext.P4. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk