IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 25448 of 2008(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------------------- 1. OKAY OXYGEN,MANVILA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANVILA, KULATHUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRORIETRIX NIMMY ANTONY. 2. MOHANAM, PLOT NO.26, MANVILA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANVILA, KULATHUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. META COATS ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.11, MANVILA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANVILA, KULATHUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P. GANESH. 4. INTIMATE MACHINES PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.39, MANVILA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANVILA, KULATHUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, KISHORE KUMAR. 5. ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIES, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, MANVILA, KULATHUR.P.O, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT V.K. SHAJI. BY ADV. MR..P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM COMMITTEE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM SUB OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 25448 of 2008(D) -2- 2. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, DISTRICT COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. *3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNITION(CITU), ATTIPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.V. SAMBASIVAN. *4. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JILLA CHUMATTU THOZHILALI UNION (INTUC) ATTIPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. R. AJAYA KUMAR. (* ADDL. R3 AND R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A NO.11338/2008 DATED 22/09/2008) ADV. MR..ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR ADDL.RPTS. MR. RENIL ANTO KANDAKULATHY, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25448 /2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF LIST OF THE MEMBER INDUSTRIAL UNITS OF THE 5TH PETITIONER ASSOCIATION FUNCTIONING IN MANVILA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE. EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.8.1990 IN O.P.NO.5833/1990. EXT.P3 – TRUE COPY OF BILL PASSED BY THE TWELFTH KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. EXT.P4 – TRUE COPYOF NOTICE DATED 25/6/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 -TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/7/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER ASSOCIATION. EXT.P6 – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/8/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7 – TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATD 16/8/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25448 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners 1 to 4 are the Small Scale Industrial Units situated in the Manvila Industrial Estate at Kulathur in Thiruvananthapuram District and 5th petitioner is their Association. Exhibit P4 is the notice issued by the first respondent calling upon the other members of the 5th petitioner to obtain registration under the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1983. On receipt of notice, Exhibit P5 objection was filed by the 5th petitioner and petitioners 1 to 4 states they have submitted individual replies. According to them, they do not have the requirements of head load workers deployed by the Board, as all loading and unloading works are incidental to the main activity. However, without considering any of the objections raised by them, the first respondent issued Exhibit P6 proceedings confirming Exhibit P4. It is thereupon, this writ petition has been filed. W.P.(C) No. 25448 /2008 2 2. Counsel for the petitioners also submits that since 18/02/2009, at the instigation of the second respondent, head load workers are creating obstruction to the functioning of the units, as a result of which, according to him, entire activities of the Small Scale Industrial Units are at a stand still. 3. Heard counsel for the respondents. A reading of Exhibit P6 order referred to above shows that none of the objections raised by the 5th petitioner or individual replies allegedly filed by petitioners 1 to 4 has been considered by the first respondent. Therefore, Exhibit P6 is liable to be set aside. 4. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage points out that there is no meaning in directing reconsideration in the light of the contents of Exhibit P5. Although, on the face of Exhibit P4, the contention now raised by the counsel for the petitioner is justified, still having regard to the fact that the matter needs to be decided appreciating the facts, I direct that Exhibit P4 be treated as a Show Cause Notice and first respondent shall consider the issue in the light of Exhibit P5 objections filed by the 5th petitioner and individual replies, if any, filed by the other W.P.(C) No. 25448 /2008 3 petitioners. It is directed that decision as shall be taken with notice to the petitioners. 5. In the meanwhile in order to ensure that the Small Scale Industrial Units do not suffer any hardship, I direct that status quo as on 18/02/2009 shall be maintained, in so far as the work in the units are concerned. If any police assistance is necessary for maintaining this order, I direct that it will be open to the petitioners to approach Sub Inspector of Police of the concerned station, who shall render necessary assistance. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm