IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 20828 of 2008(D) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. K.V.ASOKAN , AGE 48, S/O. VASU POOL LEADER, POOL 17, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.T.PHILIP, AGE 42, S/O. THOMAS POOL LEADER, POOL 27, EDAKKATTUVAYAL VIA ARAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SMT.PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM SMT.ELIZEBETH MEERA SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. LOCAL COMMITTEE, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD THRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN 2. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ERNAKULAM 3. K.K.REMANAN, AGED 45, S/O.KRISHNAN POOL LEADER, POOL 18, ARAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM R1 & R2 BY SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.K.JOSE KURIAKOSE SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.ADEEP ANWAR SRI.M.S.SREEJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ WP(C).No. 20828/2008(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF IDENTITY CARD NO./04/03/27/1401 OF A WORKER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF IDENTITY CARD NO.602/98/18 OF A WORKER UNDER THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.298/05 DATED 06/01/2006 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPORT OF SUB COMMITTEE DATED 28/01/2008. P5: COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER DATED 06/03/2008. P6: COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER DATED 27/03/2008. P7: COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/03/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ENFORCING THE REPORT. P8: COPY OF OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT P7 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 29/03/2008. P9: COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT P7 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 29/03/2008. P10: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.11246/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P11: COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 07/05/2008 FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P4 REPORT. P12: COPY OF LIST OF ESTABLISHMENTS IN POOL 18 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. P13: COPY OF ORDER NO.A3/6366/08 DATED 07/06/2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P14: COPY PETITION DATED 09/07/08 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. P15: COPY THE EXPLANATION DATED 15/07/08 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P16: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12/08/2008. .........2/-.. ...2... P17: COPY OF REPORT DATED 12/08/2008 FILED BY THE SUB COMMITTEE BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P18: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 153RD MEETING DATED 27/08/2008 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. P19: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/10/2009 ISSUED BY SRI. O.S. HARI, POOL LEADER, POOL NO.17 TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P20: COPY OF LETTER DATED 02/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P21: COPY OF LETTER NO.E 95/2009 DATED 02/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SVS/ C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.20828 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated 13th September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the pool leaders of headload workers of Pool Nos. 17 and 27 under the first respondent. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P13 order of the 2nd respondent confirming Ext.P7 order of the first respondent which was passed accepting Ext.P4 report. Essentially, the grievance pertains to the assignment of certain areas to the headload workers in Pool No.18. The third respondent is its leader. 2. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the rival pleadings in this writ petition. They would reveal existence of dispute between the headload workers in Pool Nos.17 and 27 on one side and headload workers in Pool No.18 on the other side. In essence, the grievance of the petitioners is that consequent to Exts.P4 and P7, headload workers in Pool No.18 are getting more work than the headload workers in Pool Nos.17 and 27. In other words, they got grievance against the decisions of first and second respondents, as well. In view of the factual position thus obtained in this writ petition, Section WP(C).No.20828/2008 2 2(h) of the Kerala Headload Workers' Act, 1978 assumes relevance. It reads thus: “S.2(h). “dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and headload workers or between headload workers and headload workers, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of employment, of any headload workers.” Evidently, there exist, disputes between headload workers in Pool Nos.17, 18 and 27, i.e., there are disputes between headload workers and headload workers. That apart, the nature of the grievance, i.e., with respect to the fixation of area of work, by first and second respondents would further suggest that besides the existence of dispute between headload workers and headload workers, there exists dispute between employer and headload workers. This is because in terms of the definition given under Section 2(i)(ii), the committee constituted under Section 18 of the Headload Workers' Act would also fall under the definition of `employer'. As noticed hereinbefore, it is against the decision of such committee constituted under Section 18 of the Act that the petitioners have raised their grievances in this writ petition. Suffice it to say that there exists dispute as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. In respect of any such dispute, as per Section 21 of the Act, the Assistant Labour Officer of the concerned area is having jurisdiction to call WP(C).No.20828/2008 3 conciliation conferences for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute. It also provides that in case of failure to settle the dispute, a report has to be submitted to the Conciliation Officer and further procedures and course of action have been provided under the Act. In view of the aforesaid position, I am of the view that for redressing the grievance raised in this writ petition, the petitioners have to approach the Assistant Labour Officer of the concerned area by raising dispute invoking the provisions under Section 21 of the Headload Workers Act. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in this case a report has been prepared by the sub-committee formed by the local committee and in the said committee the Assistant Labour Officer of the said area was also a member. Therefore, the petitioners apprehend that it will be a futile exercise to approach the Assistant Labour Officer and ask to conciliate on the issues. The petitioners did not attribute any personal bias on the Assistant Labour Officer and that apart, under Section 21 of the Act the Assistant Labour Officer is not adjudicating on the dispute whilst he can only convene conciliation conferences to bring about a settlement of the dispute. In case of its failure he is bound to file such report to the Conciliation Officer. Hence, I cannot countenance with the contention that it will be a futile exercise to approach the Assistant Labour Officer. I am of the view that WP(C).No.20828/2008 4 when the Act provides the manner to resolve the dispute, the persons aggrieved have to resort to such remedy as specifically provided under the Act. In view of the aforesaid position, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the concerned Assistant Labour Officer raising the dispute in terms of the provisions under Section 21 of the Act. In case of its receipt the Assistant Labour Officer shall issue notice to the leaders of pool Nos.17, 18 and 27 as also to the Headload Workers' Welfare Board and convene conciliation conference. It is made clear that the Assistant Labour Officer of the concerned area shall convene conciliation conference untrammelled by the observations made in Ext.P4 report. Needless to say that in case of failure to settle the dispute, he shall send a report as contemplated under the Act to the Conciliation Officer to enable him to resort to further course of action. In case of receipt of a petition, the Assistant Labour Officer concerned shall take all earnest efforts to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS