IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 15536 of 2000(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DESIYA LOADING AND UNLOADING THOZHILALI UNION, REG. NO. 297/76 (I.N.T.U.C.), KECHERI.P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, ADV. SMT.T.C.KRISHNA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 3. KECHERI CHUMATTU THOZHILALI UNION (INTUC), KECHERI.P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI, ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY, ADV. SMT.K.R.PRIYA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 15536/2000-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF A REGISTRATION CARD ISSUED TO ONE OF THE PETITIONER'S MEMBER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO K.K. SUDHAKARAN. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. DTD. 13/01/99. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 15/01/2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD NO. LBR.08/09/21/99 DTD. NIL. ISSUED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM TO SHRI.M.O. KOCHUKURIAN. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD NO. LBR. 08/09/22/99 DTD. NIL. ISSUED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM TO SHRI.M.T.JOBI. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.15536 of 2000-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The members of the petitioner union are pitted against the members of the third respondent union, apparently on an issue concerning the nature of work to which each of the workers are entitled to perform, going by the registration cards issued to them. Even though the District Labour Officer has decided the said matter under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the appellate authority has confirmed the same, the dispute has not been settled accordingly and that is why the petitioners are before this court. 2. I heard Shri T.C. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashok B. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent union, in detail. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the members of the petitioners union are issued identity cards like Exts.P1 and P2, under Rule 26-A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. It is pointed out that going by Ext.P1, he can do the work outside Kecheri bazaar and going by Ext.P2, that worker can perform the work of loading and unloading of building materials in Kecheri. But in Ext.P3, in the operative portion the District Labour Officer specified that the third respondent union OP 15536/2000 -2- can perform the loading and unloading works except that of building materials in and near the Kecheri market. It is therefore submitted that the decision does not reflect any finding as to the particular nature of work which a worker can engage himself based on the identity card issued. It is pointed out further that going by the specified nature of work provided in the identity cards, the workers have been clearly enabled to perform such works in the area thus specified and if the decision of the District Labour Officer is allowed to stand, then the entire thing will depend upon the membership of the respective unions. It is therefore submitted that the decision of the District Labour Officer does not reflect the correct position. Learned counsel submitted that the same is a non speaking order. Ext.P4 is the appellate order. Therein, the appellate authority confirmed the decision with a clarification that the right is to the member workers and not to the union. 3. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the members of the petitioner union or the union themselves did not produce evidence in support of their claim before the District Labour Officer and therefore they cannot, at this distance of time, complain that the District Labour Officer has not bestowed attention to the various aspects as now argued. Learned counsel further pointed out that actually the petitioner OP 15536/2000 -3- union claim that their members were doing loading and unloading works of all types outside Kecheri Bazaar and thus the attempt made, was only to establish such a claim. Learned counsel for the third respondent also invited my attention to the identity cards Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) wherein the areas under which the particular workers can engage themselves as headload workers, have been clearly specified. In answer to the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P1 was issued in the year 1998 and Ext.P2 is seen issued in the year 2000, where as Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) have been issued in the year 1999. 4. Going by Rule 26-A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, prior to the issuance of the registration card (identity card), a headload worker has to submit his application in Form No.IX with the registering authority concerned. Sub-rule (3) shows that the registering authority shall register the name of the headload worker on being satisfied that the headload worker is eligible for registration in Form No. IX. Column 3 requires the applicant to show the nature of work. Therefore, going by the relevant provisions of the rules, the nature of work is a matter which depends upon the details given in the application that is submitted in Form No. IX by each individual worker. The membership in a particular union or the activities of a particular union cannot have any impact on the nature of work which an OP 15536/2000 -4- individual headload worker is entitled to perform. Otherwise, it will depend upon the membership of workers in the particular union, where as it is well settled that a union cannot have a monopoly in such matters and what governs the field is the right of the individual worker. 5. In the light of the above legal position, the District Labour Officer ought to have examined the relevant records leading to the issuance of identity cards to all the workers like the ones produced in this original petition by the petitioners and those produced by the third respondent in their counter affidavit to identify the eligibility of each individual worker. Otherwise, if a member of the petitioner union joins the third respondent union, then that will deprive the performance of the work assigned to the headload worker as per the identity card. Such a position is not envisaged either by the provisions of the Headload Workers Act or by the provisions of the Headload Workers Rules. Therefore, what should have been enquired into by the District Labour Officer was whether the particular worker is entitled to perform a particular type of headload work as provided in the identity card and whether it is inside the market or whether it is outside the market in the specified areas. Since that aspect has not been considered by the District Labour Officer or by the appellate authority, I feel that the matter has to go back to the District Labour Officer again. OP 15536/2000 -5- Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. The second respondent District Labour Officer will reconsider the matter in the light of the findings rendered above and in the light of the provisions of the relevant rules, etc. Both parties can adduce evidence in support of the respective claims. The District Labour Officer will call for the files relating to the issue of identity cards in respect of each worker of the different unions, before taking a decision in the matter. Appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 15536/2000 -6- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.15536 of 2000-Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 6th March, 2008.