IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 12969 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.V.JOSEPH, POOL LEADER, POOL.NO.34 A, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, II-ND CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, SRM ROAD, KOCHI-18. 3. THE CHAIRPERSON, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, T.D.ROAD, KOCHI-35. 4. K.V.MURALEEDHARAN, THE POOL LEADER, POOL.NO.42,KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB R4 BY SRI.V.P.PRASAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12969/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2.11.2004 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT INFORMING THE POOL LEADERS OF POOL NOS. 34 A. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 18.11.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 22.11.2008 SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER E2/2293/08 DTD. 10.12.08 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DTD. 15.12.08 SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2/2293/08 DTD. NIL 1.09 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SENT TO PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE APLICATION DTD. 6.1.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETTIIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13/1/2009 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WRIT. PETITION (CIVIL 1056/09. P9:- COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONDUCT A SITE INSPECTION. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16.2.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 1.4.1995. R4(b):- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 10.10.2002. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.12969 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Essentially, the dispute involved in this Writ Petition is between workers under Pool No.34A and Pool No.42, who are engaged in headload works under the third respondent, over the area of work. After hearing the parties, the second respondent passed Ext.P10 order. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Exts.P4, P6 and P10 orders and also with a prayer to declare that only the members of Pool No.34A have the right over the loading and unloading works in the Ghosree Project area which is the northern end of Marine Drive, Ernakulam. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned Government Pleader. The rival contentions would reveal the existence of a dispute regarding the area of work. The nature of the dispute would reveal that it is a dispute falling under Section 2(h) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act'). In terms of Section 21 of the Act, where a dispute exists in connection with the employment or non- W.P.(C) NO.12969/2009 2 employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of work, the Assistant Labour Officer having jurisdiction over the area in question is bound to conciliate on the issue for the purpose of bringing about settlement of the dispute. In case the Assistant Labour Officer fails to bring about a settlement, the said authority shall submit a report before the Conciliation Officer for taking appropriate action in terms of Section 21 of the Act. In view of the said legal position and also in the light of existing dispute between workers of two pools under the third respondent over the area of work, I am of the view that the parties to the dispute have to approach the concerned Assistant Labour Officer having jurisdiction of the area in terms of Section 21 of the Act. In case the petitioner or the concerned parties to the dispute approach the first respondent in terms of Section 21 of the Act, the first respondent shall convene conciliation conference for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute. In case the first respondent fails to bring about such a settlement, a report shall be submitted to the Conciliation Officer to enable him to take appropriate further action in the matter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.12969/2009 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.12969/2009 4