IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 17798 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. ANB PLASTIC (P) LTD POOSARIMEDU, KODUVAYOOR MAIN ROAD, VEMBALOOR P.O PALAKKADU DISTRICT,KERALA, PIN-678502,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,M.D.ANILKUMAR 2. INNOPACK POLYMER PACKING PVT LTD POOSARIMEDU, KODUVAYOOR MAIN ROAD, VEMBALOOR P.O PALAKKADU DISTRICT REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,M.D.ANILKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.LAWRENCE D'CUNHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALATHUR, ALATHUR P.O.,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678541 2. S.I.OF POLICE,PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION PALAKKADU DISTRICT-678541 3. M.VELIAYUDHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, POOL LEADER CITU UNION, POOSARIMEDU, KODUVAYOOR MAIN ROAD, VEMBALOOR P.O. PALAKKADU-678502 WP(C).No. 17798 of 2011(Y) -2- 4. KERALA HEDLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ALATHUR LOCAL COMMITTEE, IIIRD FLOOR KRISHNA BUILDINGS, ALATHUR P.O., ALATHUR-678541 * ADDL. R5 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. *[ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DT.18/08/11 IN THE WRIT PETITION] ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R4 SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R-3 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17798 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 08/06/11 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 14/02/11. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. 17798 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Petitioners are two small scale industrial units represented through its common Managing Director. The units are engaged in manufacturing of plastic bottles and caps, used for storage of drinking water. Contention of the petitioners is that, the units are engaging its own permanent employees for all the required loading-unloading works in the units and the permanent workers are doing such works as part of their job in the units. The loading-unloading works are done only within the enclosed compound of the factories. Allegation of the petitioners is that, the 3rd respondent and its members are creating obstructions to the loading-unloading works, claiming that their members alone W. P. C. 17798 of 2011 -2- are entitled to do such works in the area in question. The allegation is that inspite of petitions submitted to respondents 1 and 2, as evidenced from Exts.P1 and P2, the police authorities are not taking any actions to remove the physical obstructions and to afford protection for the smooth conduct of the industrial units. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is contended that the industrial units are situated in an area where the scheme formulated under the Kerala Headload Worker's Act is implemented. It is further contended that the members of the 3rd respondent union are the registered headload workers assigned to the pool constituted in the area where the factories are situated. It is further contended that, since the employees of the petitioners are not registered under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, they are not entitled to do the loading-unloading works in the units. W. P. C. 17798 of 2011 -3- 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Board had informed this Court that the location, namely 'Poosarimedu' in Thenkurussi Panchayat is a scheme implemented area. It is further submitted that the issue was discussed in the District Committee of the Headload Workers Board and it was noticed that the locality comes under the area allotted for Pool No.7. The committee had taken a decision to request the petitioners to register their establishments under the scheme and to engage the workers from the pool for doing their loading-unloading works. 4. Sri.John Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had pointed out that the industrial units in question are small scale industries and the loading- unloading works are required only on a nominal basis. The finished products are only in small quantity and the works are being conducted by the workers employed in the factory W. P. C. 17798 of 2011 -4- as part of their job. Since the loading-unloading works is done only as an ancillary work of the permanent workers engaged in the factory, the members of 3rd respondent or the workers registered under the pool in question has no manner of right to claim the work, is the contention. He relies on the decision of this Court reported in Hotel Raj International v. Headload Wrokers Welfare Board (2010(4) KLT 179). 5. We are of the considered opinion that the question as to what will be the quantity of the loading-unloading works and as to whether it can be done as an incidental or ancillary work of the permanent employees, are matters which are in dispute. In exercise of jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 226, we cannot resolve such disputes. The legal position stands settled as on today. It is clear that the petitioners are not entitled to engage un-registered workers for loading-unloading works, because the area in W. P. C. 17798 of 2011 -5- question is covered under the scheme and the local committee had implemented the functional operation of the scheme with respect to the said area. 6. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that he is ready and willing to take registration for the permanent workers under the Headload Workers Rules and in this regard he is intending to submit applications to the authority concerned i.e. the Assistant Labour Officer, Alathur. 7. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that if the petitioners apply for registration, the same shall be considered by the competent authority, after complying with all the due procedure. Since it is submitted that the petitioners are immediately filing applications for registration, we suo motu implead the Assistant Labour Officer, Alathur, Palakkad as Additional 5th respondent. The Registry will carry out necessary corrections in the cause W. P. C. 17798 of 2011 -6- title. If the permanent workers of the petitioners submit any application for their registration under Rule 26(A) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, the 5th respondent shall consider and dispose of the same at the earliest possible, after affording opportunities to all parties concerned, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such applications. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. 17798 of 2011 -7-