IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5610 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- C.V. JOLLY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, PRESIDENT, VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHY, VARAPPUZHA (TOWN UNIT), REG. NO.ER-410/05,VII/261,VARAPUZHA-683 517. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.R.T.PRADEEP, MR.V.VIJULAL. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OFFICE OF KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM NORTH. 2. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KERALA HAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, T.D.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PARAVOOR LOCAL COMMITTEE, MARKERT ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR - 683513. 4. A.K. PIOUS, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, PUTHENPALLY,VARAPPUZHA P.O. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 5610 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the president of a Traders Organization at Varapuzha. The headload workers welfare scheme is made applicable to the area. The organization of which the petitioner is the President is called the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy Varapuzha (town unit) in which 16 traders who employ headload workers are members. The petitioner had represented the employers of headload workers in Paravoor Local Committee since 2004 onwards. 2. While so, the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 has been amended by Act 3 of 2009 with effect from 3.1.2009. By the amendment, the local committees have been replaced by advisory committees constituted by the Board. A district committee to be constituted by the Government is also contemplated for each district. The Government is empowered to appoint the District Committee and the Board is empowered to constitute the advisory committee. 3. According to the petitioner, though the district committee for Ernakulam was constituted, the same does not contain any WPC 5610/2010 2 representatives of the employers who actually employ headload workers. The third respondent who was the chairman of the local committee had called upon the petitioner to furnish the names of persons who were to represent his organisation in the Paravoor Advisory Committee to be constituted by the Board. The organisation gave the name of the petitioner as its representative. However, the fourth respondent's name has been included in his place as per a decision of the District Committee which met on 15.2.2010. According to the petitioner the District Committee is only competent to recommend the representatives of the employers to the Advisory Committee. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the second respondent from selecting representatives of employers to the Advisory Committee and also from forwarding the name of the fourth respondent to the Board. He has also sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus to constitute the Advisory Committee of Paravoor by including the names of the persons whose names are mentioned in Ext.P8. The petitioner also contends that constitution of the advisory committee without the representatives of the people who actually employ headload workers would not result in creation of truly representative body of the employers. WPC 5610/2010 3 4. A statement has been filed by the counsel for respondents 1 to 3. According to the statement, the second respondent had contacted the trade unions as well as employers' associations in Ernakulam district and had obtained a list of persons suggested for inclusion in the advisory committees for the various places at Ernakulam. Ext.P8 is the list that is suggested from Paravoor. However, many of the lists contained the names of more persons than was required. Therefore, the first respondent directed the second respondent to finalise the list with the names of consensus candidates wherever it was possible. However, the initiative did not succeed and the attempt to identify consensus candidates did not fructify. Therefore, on the suggestion of the district committee, a panel of names was prepared and was forwarded to the first respondent. The said list is produced along with the statement as Annexure A. The said list does not contain the name of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that the list Annexure A was prepared after due deliberations in the District Committee and that the names were suggested by the representatives of the employers belonging to the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy of which the petitioner is also a member. WPC 5610/2010 4 5. I have heard Mr. R.T.Pradeep who appears for the petitioner as well as Mr. Koshy George who appears for respondents 1 to 3. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the constitution of the advisory committee without the representatives of employers who actually employ headload workers is impermissible. Such constitution would be against democratic norms and would not make the body a truly representative one. According to the petitioner, having been recommended as per Ext.P8 to be a member of the advisory committee by his organisation he had every right to be included in the advisory committee. Therefore, the action of the respondents in excluding his name and including the name of the fourth respondent in his place is unsustainable. It is the further case of the petitioner that the District Committee had no power to exclude his name, having been recommended as per Ext.P8. Therefore according to the petitioner the District Committee exceeded its powers in nominating the fourth respondent. The petitioner also claims that having been the representative of the employers from 2004 onwards, he had every right to be included in the Paravoor Advisory Committee. WPC 5610/2010 5 7. As per the amendment Ext.P2, a new Section 19A has been inserted into the Headload Workers Act, 1978. Section 19A reads as follows:- “19A Appointment of Advisory Committee---(1) The Board may constitute as many Advisory Committees as are found necessary for any area in a revenue district for the purpose of advising the committee on any matter pertaining to that area. (2) Every Advisory Committee under sub- section (1) shall consist of seven members nominated by the Board of whom three each shall represent the employers and the headload workers and one shall be an officer of the Board. (3) The officer of the Board nominated under sub section (2) shall be its convener. (4) The term of office of the members of the Advisory Committee and the conduct of business of the Advisory Committee shall be such as may be decided by the Board from time to time.” 8. It is from the above provision that the Advisory Committee is to consist of seven members to be nominated by the first respondent Board of whom three each shall represent the employers and the headload workers and one shall be an officer of the Board. By seeking recommendation of the names of suitable persons to represent the employers from the local committee or the employers' organisations, the Board has acted only in a democratic manner. The complaint of the petitioner is that though Ext.P8 contains his name, his name has not been accepted by the Board. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent's name WPC 5610/2010 6 has been recommended by the District Committee as the person to be nominated in his place. There is no material or evidence placed before me to show that the exclusion of the petitioner or inclusion of the fourth respondent is vitiated by any extraneous consideration, malafides or political consideration. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the nomination made. 9. I also notice that the petitioner has no right to insist that he should be nominated as a representative of the employers to the advisory committee. It is trite that in the absence of any right to insist that he should be nominated, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. A writ of mandamus is issued only to enforce a public duty. The respondents do not have a public duty to nominate the petitioner. I also do not find any grounds for the issue of a writ of mandamus in this case. 10. In the above circumstances there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned action of the respondents. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 5610/2010 7 WPC 5610/2010 8 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: