IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6885 of 2011(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.S.S.ENTERPRIESES,PACKING CONTRACTORS C.C. NO.II/74, CALVATHY, COCHIN 682 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,MR.K.S.SHAJAHAN,S/O.K.K.SHERIEF, AGED 39 YEARS,RESIDING AT C.C.NO.2/515,CALVATHY, FORTCOCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ 1. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS BOARD, MATTANCHERRY LOCAL COMMITTEE,KOCHI-682002, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. 2. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, SRM ROAD,KALOOR,KOCHI-682017,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE. 3. COCHIN PORT LABOUR UNION(CITU), WELLINGTON ISLAND,KOCHI-682003,REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,B.HAMZA. 4. COCHIN THURAMUGA THOZHILALI UNION(CITU), WELLINGTON ISLAND,KOCHI-682003,REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,SHIHAB. 5. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND RAHABILITATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 6. JOINT REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, CIVIL STATION,ERNAKULAM. 682 001. tss W.P.(C) NO.6885/2011 7. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION,CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM.682 001. 8. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY MATTANCHERRY,KOCHI-682002. 9. MR.P.K.ASLAM,POOL LEADER,K.A.POOL, CALVATHY,KOCHI-682001. 10. MR.ANZAR,POOL LEADER,A.M.A.POOL,CALVATHY KOCHI-682001. 11. MR.MAIDUPPA,POOL LEADER,A.M.E.POOL, MATTANCHERRY,KOCHI-682002. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB R3 & R9 BY SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY. R4, R10& R11 BY SRI.B.N.SHIVSHANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.6885/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 1.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER FORM NO.THT-11/NWC-688 DTD. 16.2.2011 BEING THE ORDER OF SHIPMENT TO ODESSA UKRAINE. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT NO.SBI N 0005050 DTD. 1.2.2011 BEING THE ORDER OF SHIPMENT TO BEIJING, CHINA. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD. 3.3.2011 FILED BY THE PETITINER BEFORE THE SIT RESPONDENT P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 3.3.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.6885 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court for issue of directions for police protection and for directions to respondents 1 and 2 to allot work of stuffing to appropriate workers/union. 2. The dispute that has arisen is a sequel to the commencement of the IGCTT, i.e. Indira Gandhi Container Transhipment Terminal at Vallarpadam, Kochi. Earlier, the work was being done at the RGCTT, i.e. Rajiv Gandhi Container Transhipment Terminal. According to the petitioner, the work of stuffing the containers in the premises of the petitioners used to be performed by respondent No.9. This was done without any objection from any person. Consequent to the commencement of activities of the IGCTT, a dispute has arisen whether the said work of stuffing the containers in the premises of the petitioners, when such containers are intended to be WPC No.6885/2011 2 transported to IGCTT, is to be allotted to the 9th respondent or respondent Nos. 10 and 11. The bone of the contention is whether the stuffing of the containers intended to be transported to IGCTT can be reckoned as local haul or long haul. As per the practice hitherto prevalent, containers to be transported to RGCTT were reckoned as local haul. Containers meant to be transported outside Willingdon Island were treated as long hauls. If reckoned as long haul, respondents 10 and 11 will be entitled to the work of stuffing. If reckoning as local haul, respondent No.9 will be entitled to do the stuffing work also. This is the dispute. Consequent to this dispute which remains unresolved, the petitioner is not able to get his work done. Respondents 1 and 2 are not providing workers also. It is in these circumstances that directions are prayed for. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 who have entered appearance through the standing counsel submits that the question deserves to be conciliated/adjudicated under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. We find merit in that submission. Respondents 3 and 4 or WPC No.6885/2011 3 respondents 9 to 11 do not raise any contra contention. We are satisfied that the said dispute deserves to be resolved by resort to the procedure for conciliation/adjudication under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. 4. We are informed that so far no steps have been initiated for commencement of conciliation/adjudication under Section 21 of the Act. The Assistant Labour Officer, Mattancherry is the one who must commence action. He must have apprehended the dispute by now and he must have initiated action. It is not invariably necessary for him to wait for any one to formally raise a dispute before him. On apprehension of the dispute by him, he can initiate action under Section 21. 5. We do in these circumstances direct the Assistant Labour Officer, Mattancherry to immediately commence proceedings under Section 21 of the Act for resolution of the dispute between the contestants. On the report of the Assistant Labour Officer (if the matter is not settled), the 7th respondent District Labour Officer will have to play his part under the scheme of Section 21. Thereafter, if WPC No.6885/2011 4 necessary, parties can take the matter to the appellate authority. We direct the Assistant Labour Officer, Mattancherry to immediately commence proceedings under Section 21. We expect the learned Government Pleader to immediately communicate the direction to the Assistant Labour Officer, Mattancherry. 6. One short question survives. Till the dispute is resolved, who shall get the work done. It is not disputed that as per the existing practice when the containers were to be transported to RGCTT, respondent No.9 used to do that work also, whereas if the confinements were meant for destinations outside the Willingdon Island, respondents 10 and 11 used to do the said work. We are satisfied in these circumstances that specific directions must be issued which shall hold the field only until the dispute is settled by resort to machinery under Section 21. Accordingly, we proceed to issue appropriate directions: 7. In the result, a) this petition is allowed. b) We direct that the work of stuffing the containers, even if the containers are meant for WPC No.6885/2011 5 transportation to IGCTT Vallarpadam, shall be done by the 9th respondent until a decision is taken by resort to procedure under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workes Act. c) We direct respondents 1 and 2 to act in accordance with the above direction. d) We direct the 8th respondent to afford adequate protection to the petitioner and the 9th respondent to do the said work in compliance with the above directions. e) We direct the authorities to complete the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from today. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/