IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15553 of 2005(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.HAKKIM, S/O.KAHDEESHA, RAWTHER, PULIYAPPAN THODI, KANAANNOOR, KANNADI P.O. PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS, WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD LOCAL COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE CONVENOR IN CHARGE, THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD LOCAL COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD. 4. M.RAMESH, S/O.P.MUTHU, NEW COLONY, CHETTY STREET, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPPADATH, SC,KHLWWB FOR R1 & 2 SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R.1& 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.30.6.2004 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P2:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.12.10.2004 ISSUED BY R2 EXT.P3:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.11.10.2004 ISSUED BY R3 EXT.P4:- COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.13.10.2004 FROM THE PETITIONER TO R2. EXT.P5:- COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.23.11.2004 FROM THE PETITIONER TO R2. EXT.P6:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.1.2.2004 OF R3. EXT.P7:- COPY OF STATEMENT OF WAGES OF POOL NO.14 OF DECEMBER 2004. EXT.P8:- COPY OF ORDER NO.E3-50/VOLUME 4/2000 DTD.19.4.2005 PASSED BY R2. RESPONDENTS EXTS: EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER MAINTAINED BY POOL NO.14 UNDER R2 FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 2004 TO MARCH 2004 EXT.R1(b):- COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD.19/2/2004 ISSUED BY MEDICAL BOARD OF DISTRICT HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD IN RESPECT OF SRI.MUTHU. EXT.R1(c):- COPY OF STATEMENT OF WAGES PAID TO THE WORKERS OF POOL NO.14 FROM JANUARY 2004 TO MARCH 2005. EXT.R1(d):- COPY OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF POOL NO.14 FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2005 /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.15553 OF 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of MAY, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the pool leader of Pool No.14 of the third respondent committee, constituted under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Scheme. He is aggrieved by Exts.P2, P3, P6 and P8 orders. Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the Palakkad Local Committee, whereby the father of the fourth respondent and others were allowed to discontinue as headload workers on medical grounds. Ext.P3 is the order, by which the fourth respondent and others given compassionate employment as the dependant of a person who was relieved from headload work on medical grounds. Ext.P6 is a communication issued by the Kerala Headload workers Welfare Board informing the petitioner that the fourth respondent has been validly given compassionate employment. Ext.P8 is the order of Chairman of the Local Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, Palakkad, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the W.P.(c)No.15553/05 2 appointment of the fourth respondent on compassionate basis was rejected. 2. The contentions of the petitioner are two fold. First is that as is evident from Ext.P1 order dated 30.6.04, the father of the fourth respondent Sri. P. Muthu was discharged on superannuation on attaining 60 years of age, since at the relevant time no headload worker, who has attained 60 years of age, could continue as a headload worker under the Headload workers Act and Scheme. Therefore, according to the petitioner, a person who has superannuated as a headload worker cannot get his dependant son appointed on compassionate basis. The second contention is that, even otherwise, going by the Act and Scheme, there is no provision for giving employment to persons whose service has been dispensed with on medical grounds, although there is a provision for giving employment to dependants of headload workers, who have died in harness. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have sought to justify the appointment of the fourth respondent on compassionate basis on the ground that even before attaining 60 years of age, the father of the fourth W.P.(c)No.15553/05 3 respondent Sri. P. Muthu had filed an application for relieving him from headload work on account of ill-health. They would submit that simply because there was delay in considering the application submitted by Sri.P. Muthu and simply because by the time it was duly considered, he had attained the age of 60 years, the 4th respondent cannot be denied the benefit of compassionate employment. Regarding the second contention they would contend that although at the relevant time there was no specific provision for giving compassionate employment to dependants of persons, who discontinue headload work on account of ill-health, considering the special circumstances the same is justified. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I do not quite approve of a scheme, whereby a person at the eve of his superannuation files an application to relieve him from headload work on account of ill-health so that a dependant of his can be given compassionate employment, even if there was a provision for the same. If such a practice is countenanced then every headload worker would resort to such unhealthy practice which has to be discouraged. But in this case, admittedly, at the relevant point of time, there was W.P.(c)No.15553/05 4 no provision anywhere in the headload workers Act and Rules, whereby a dependant of a person who was relieved from service on account of ill-health could be given compassionate employment. In view of the absence of such a provision I do not think that the fourth respondent could have been given appointment on compassionate basis as a dependant of Sri. P. Muthu, who has been relieved from service. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed and it is declared that the fourth respondent is not entitled to appointment as a headload worker in the place of his father Sri.P. Muthu, who is stated to have been relieved from work on account of ill-health. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.15553/05 5 W.P.(c)No.15553/05 6