IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25330 of 2010 (M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ EMESS INDUSTRIES CHEMPAKAMANGALAM, KORANI PO, TRIVANDRUM 695 104. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KAZHAKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM 695003. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MANGALAPURAM 695104. 3. CONVENER,INTUC, CHEMPAKAMANGALAM UNIT 575001. ADDL.R4: KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN; IMPLEADED AS PER DATED 30.9.10 IN I.A.NO.13617/10. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY ADDL. R4 BY SRI.KOSHY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25330 of 2010 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED UNDER FACTORIES ACT. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2010. EXT.P4. COPY OF MEMORANDUM GIVEN BY EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR OF 2009. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04.08.2010. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.08.2010. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.09.2010. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 03.09.2010. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL P.S. TO JUDGE / TRUE COPY / VK THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.25330 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner is a wood based industry. It is stated that it is a small scale industry where furnitures are manufactured. There can be no doubt that manufactured furnitures have to be handled carefully since the products would be delicate and the handling can result in loss if there is mishandling. 2.The raw materials being wood, either in the form of logs or sawn wood, can be unloaded without expertise of the highest order though reasonable skill in unloading has to be maintained so that they did not get damaged. 3.The controversy between the petitioner and the third respondent, a trade union, relates to the claim of the third respondent that its members were carrying out the unloading WPC.25330/10 2 works and they are being denied employment though the petitioner establishment is in an area notified under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Scheme. At the same time, we cannot also ignore the complaint of the petitioner that the workers who are members of the 3rd respondent are not so skilled as to handle the finished goods of the petitioner. We do not express anything on this finally because the issue including the question as to whether the work of loading and unloading in the petitioner's establishment is exceptional to the main work of that unit is a matter pending consideration before the Assistant Labour Officer who has to, if needed, place the matter to the District Labour Officer for appropriate decision in terms of the statutory rules. 4.In the light of the aforesaid, we issue the following directions. The ALO/DLO will hear the petitioner, the third respondent and the additional 4th respondent Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board and make effective efforts to reconcile the WPC.25330/10 3 disputes, if possible, within four weeks. The ALO/DLO shall, in such event, decide on the issues arising for decision in accordance with law as stated above and all other questions as may be relevant and arising for consideration. Pending the aforesaid, the petitioner will permit the members of the third respondent to do unloading work of the raw materials in the form of logs, sawn wood etc. in terms of the provisions of the Headload Workers Act and Scheme and with the intervention of the appropriate authority in the Board. The third respondent or its members shall, in no manner, obstruct the loading of the finished or semi finished goods by the petitioner utilising its own work force even if they are not registered as attached workers in terms of the Headload Workers Act and Rules. This arrangement will continue till the DLO/DLO decides on the matter appropriately. This judgment will not also stand in the way of the petitioner applying to the competent authority for registration of attached workers, if necessary. The DLO will ensure that proceedings, if it reaches him, would be completed within a further period of WPC.25330/10 4 two months. The police authorities will ensure that the arrangement made herein above is strictly complied with and adequate protection is rendered to the petitioner establishment for this purpose. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.04/10.