IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 9684 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JACKSON, PROPRIETOR, MATRIX COURIER SERVICE, VIA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE MERLINE HOTEL INTERNATIONAL, P&T QUARTERS ROAD, PULLTHOLE, THRISSUR-4. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN SRI.VINUCHAND RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION [CITU], UNION POOL NO.B 23, UNION WORKER NO.8, MERLINE HOTEL INTERNATIONAL P&T QURATERS ROAD, PULLTHOLE JUNCTION, TRICHUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION [INTUC], UNION POOL NO.B23, UNION WORKERS NO.8, MERLINE HOTEL INTERNATIONAL P&T QUARTERS ROAD, PULTHOLE JUNCTION. 3. THE SECRETARY, THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION [BMS], UNION POOL NO. B23, UNION WORKERS NO.8, MERLINE HOTEL INTERNATIONAL P&T QUARTERS ROAD, PULLTHOLE JUNCTION. 4. THE CIRCLE INPSTECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.G.SURESH FOR R1-3 SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN FOR R1-3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9684/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT.3.3.2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.6.2.2002. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(a): COPIES OF THE VOUCHER RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION TO M/S.MATRIX. EXT.R2(b): COPIES OF THE IDENTITY CARDS OF THE MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT, ISSUED UNDER THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) SCHEME 1983. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9684 OF 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is running a courier service in Trichur. The said establishment is mainly handling letters and LCD monitors. The petitioner has got his own permanent workmen for doing the loading and unloading work of those articles in his establishment. While so, the members of the respondents 1 to 3 started coming to the establishment and threatening the petitioner and his workmen. Therefore, he preferred Ext.P1 representation before the police seeking necessary protection and thereafter this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 judgment, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court took a prima facie view that handling courier articles cannot be stated to be a headload work. So, relying on the said decision, the petitioner submits, the headload workers are not entitled to claim any work. So, he prays for necessary direction to the police to grant protection to him and his workmen to do the work in his establishment. W.P.(C) No.9684/2008 2 2. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating that all along they were doing the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment. In support of that submission, they have produced Ext.R1(a) series of vouchers issued by the petitioner for payment of loading and unloading charges to the local workmen. They also submitted that the local workmen are registered headload workers coming under the local pool maintained by the local committee of the Headload Workers Welfare Board. They also submitted that the petitioner does not have any registered workmen to do the loading and unloading work. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dealing with the averments in the counter affidavit of the party respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition which we have already noted above. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted Ext.P1 complaint was received by the police. But, the petitioner could W.P.(C) No.9684/2008 3 not be contacted. Later, through his mobile number when he was contacted he told the police that he will come to the police station in case there is any problem. Thereafter, the petitioner has not contacted the police, it is submitted. 5. The party respondents submitted that Ext.P2 decision does not laid down the correct decision. Section 2(m) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act defines headload worker as follows: “2(m) “headload worker” means a person engaged or employed directly or through a contractor in or for an establishment, whether for wages or not, for loading or unloading or carrying on head or person or in a trolly any article or articles in or from or to a vehicle or any place in such establishment, and includes any person not employed by any employer or contractor but engaged in the loading or unloading or carrying on head or person or in a trolly any article or articles for wages, but does not include a person engaged by an individual for domestic purposes.” 6. Going by the above definition, a person doing the loading unloading work will also be treated as a headload worker even if the goods or articles are not carried on his head. So, the view taken by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment cannot be followed. Since this is a scheme covered area and the petitioner does not W.P.(C) No.9684/2008 4 have registered headload workers, he cannot claim that his workmen should be permitted to do the loading and unloading in his establishment. Such a claim will go against the stipulation in para 6 of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. So, the prayer of the petitioner for police protection against the local headload workers attached to the pool maintained by the local committee of the Welfare Board of Headload Workers Scheme cannot be granted. But, it is clarified that the workers shall demand only wages notified by the Board from time to time for the loading and unloading works. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps