IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16354 of 2011(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.JEMSONS STARACH AND DERIVATIVES, AROOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER STANLY P.JOHN. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIATHODE-688 533. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AROOR MUKKOM P.O., AROOR-688 534. 4. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, BRANCH OFFICE, AROOR-688 534, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 5. AROOR BLOCK GENERAL WORKERS UNION (INTUC) CONGRESS HOUSE, KUTHIATHODE REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, AZEZ PAYIKKAD-688 533. 6. CHERTHALA TALUK INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU) AROOR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, C.B.CHANDRABHANU, PIN-688 534. 7. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, CHERTHALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-688 524. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) R4 & R7 BY ADV.SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC,KHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16354/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/11/2010 IN WP(C)NO.14856/2010. P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED ON 13/6/2011 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE LORRY DRIVER. P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P5 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE COMPLAINTS. P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/9/09 ISSUED BY HEAD LOAD WORKER'S BOARD. R5(B) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 21/3/2011 ISSUED BY HEAD LOAD WORKER'S BOARD. R5(C) COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21/6/11. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ******************************** W.P(C) No.16354 of 2011 (T) ***************************** Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court again seeking issuance of directions to the second and third respondents-police officials, against alleged obstruction by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 against peaceful conduct of the work of loading and unloading in the establishment/factory of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner runs a Starch Factory. Tapioca Starch is the raw material. It is brought to the establishment/factory in vehicles. Loading and unloading work used to be performed manually by the loading and the unloading workers. Area is a Scheme covered area. Arrangements are already in place to get the work of loading and unloading done by pool workers registered under the Act and Scheme. 3. There was a dispute about the loading and unloading of packets having weight exceeding 75 kilos. It is in that context that the matter came to this Court earlier and Ext.P1 judgment was rendered by another Bench of this Court. According to the, petitioner, even thereafter, unnecessary disputes continue to affect peace and harmony at the work site. W.P(C) No.16354 of 2011(T) -2- 4. What exactly is the present dispute? We spent some time to ascertain the real nature of the dispute. According to the petitioner, in respect of packets weighing less than 75 kilos, loading and unloading work is still being attended to by the pool workers. For packets weighing above 75 kilos, petitioner is making use of a mechanical device. Even while using the mechanical device for transportation of packets weighing above 75 kilos, the services of loading and unloading workers are necessary. But, according to the petitioner, the work involved is much less now. The workers have only got to place the packets in the mechanical device. To be precise, even with the mechanical devices which are being used, the service of loading and unloading workers are necessary though only to a much lesser extent. The petitioner wants the services of loading and unloading workers from the pool for all work relating to packets weighing less than 75 kilos. Even for packets weighing above 75 kilos, he needs the services of the workmen, but that is not only for the purpose of unloading the packets and to place them into the mechanical device. The petitioner accepts that for such work also the loading and unloading workers of the pool are entitled for payments though according to him, only to a much lesser extent. W.P(C) No.16354 of 2011(T) -3- 5. Respondent No.5 and 6 represent the pool workers. They have appeared before this Court through a counsel. The counsel submits that this petition is totally misconceived and unnecessary. The petitioner requires the service of loading and unloading workers from the pool. The pool workers are willing to do such work. Both in respect of packets below 75 kilos and above 75 kilos, petitioner requires such services. The remuneration payable is to be fixed. The dispute is only regarding the remuneration payable. That dispute can certainly be resolved by intervention of respondent Nos.4 and 7. Such remuneration thus payable in accordance with law will have to be paid to pool workers by the petitioner. Any dispute regarding the wages/ remuneration payable will have to be resolved in accordance with law. If harmonious settlement by intervention of respondent Nos.4 and 7 is not possible, resort can certainly be made to the provision of Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act by other. Respondent Nos.4 and 7 must ensure that such dispute is resolved harmoniously between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6, if possible. At any rate, if such resolution or dispute does not take place, parties will have to resort to the procedure under Section 21. 6. Police shall certainly afford protection to the petitioner to get W.P(C) No.16354 of 2011(T) -4- the work done. The dispute about the remuneration payable will have to be settled in accordance with Section 21. Appropriate directions can be issued, w are satisfied. 7. In the result: a) This petition is allowed. b) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall afford protection to the petitioner to get the work of loading and unloading done by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 without any illegal obstruction by them. c) The remuneration payable for such work shall be settled by discussion between the parties and if such, agreement is not possible, respondent Nos.4 and 7 shall try to intervene and settle the dispute. If such dispute is not settled even by the intervention of respondent Nos.4 and, the machinery available under Section 21 of the Act shall be made use of by both parties to resolve that dispute. Wages are agreed as fixed by the authorities under Section 21 shall be paid to the workers for all work done hereafter. R.BASANT, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE krj