IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 37115 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- SABU.S., S/O.ASHOKAN, R/O.KSHETHRIYAVILA VEEDU, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 37733 OF 2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37115 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-2154/08 DATED 28.11.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: NIL. ----------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.37115 & 37733 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these writ petitions are registered headload workers. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37115 of 2008 is a registered worker of Pool KB-6 at Ambalathara. The petitioner in the connected writ petition is a headload worker of Pool KB-4 at Paravankunnu. Both the pools are under the control of the Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board. The total number of headload workers in both the pools is 30. The workers of both the pools hold identity cards and have been allowed to work in the same locality which led to frequent disputes which was ultimately resolved by Ext.P1 order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board. By that order, the workers of Pool KB-6 were amalgamated with workers of Pool KB-4. Ext.P1 order produced in W.P.(C) No.37115 of 2008 is a copy thereof. While the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37115 of 2008 seeks implementation of that order, the petitioner in the connected writ petition challenges it. The main ground on which that order is challenged is that there was dearth of work for the workers in Pool KB- W.P.(C) Nos.37115 & 37733 of 2008 2 4 and therefore the merger was unwarranted. 2. I heard Sri.Viju Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37115 of 2008, Sri.Santhan V.Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37733 of 2008, Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and Sri.Koshy George, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board. A reading of Ext.P1 order produced in W.P.(C) No.37115 of 2008 indicates that the headload workers of both the pools were working in the same area leading to constant disputes. The Local Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board therefore thought it fit and proper to amalgamate the two pools. The learned single Judge of this Court has in Chumattu Thozhilali Congress v. State of Kerala (1998 (1) KLT 465) and Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT 713) held that Committee has the power to determine the number of headload workers needed for an area and the power to pool the registered workers into as many groups as are needed and that it is for the Committee and the Chairman of the Committee to decide how many members are necessary in a pool. It was also held that the scheme empowers the Committee to arrange the pool workers and to post them according to need. W.P.(C) Nos.37115 & 37733 of 2008 3 3. It is thus evident that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37733 of 2008 does not challenge the competence of the Committee to amalgamate two pools. The only reason stated is that the work will come down as a result of the amalgamation. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37733 of 2008 does not however dispute the fact that both the pools are permitted to work in the same area thereby resulting in constant conflicts. In such circumstances, if the Local Committee thought it fit and proper to amalgamate two pools, in my opinion, such a decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. In the result, W.P.(C) No.37733 of 2008 fails and it is accordingly dismissed. W.P.(C) No.37115 of 2008 is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to implement Ext.P1 decision. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.37115 & 37733 of 2008 JUDGMENT Dated:- 4th August, 2011 --------------------------------------