IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27385 of 2011(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SURENDRAN, S/O DIVAKARA PANICKER, AGED 47 YEARS, NANNIYARATHALA PUTHEN VEEDU, AMARAVILA P.O 2. SURENDRAN, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR, AGED 50 YEARS, NEELANATHALA VEEDU, KEEZHUKOLLA, VATTAVILA P.O BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CHAIRMAN, HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE. 2. CHOKKALINGAM, RATION WHOLESALE DEALER NO. AWOT 23 AMARAVILA - 685122 R1 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(C).No. 27385 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE DETAILS OF POOL UNDER NEYYATTINKARA SUB OFFICE PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P (C) No. 27385 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are conveners of two trade unions representing the headload workers registered under Paragraph 6A of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1983 who are members of Pools 8A, 8B and 8C at Amaravila in Thiruvananthapuram District. The total strength of workers in Pools 8A and 8B is 35 and in Pool 8C it is 7. Apprehending that first respondent is taking steps to enrol new members in Pool 8C, the petitioners contend that as there is shortage of work for workers in Pools 8A and 8B, if more workers are required in Pool 8C, workers of Pools 8A and 8B should be engaged to do the work. It is on this ground that the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to refrain from enrolling new workers to Pool No.VIII A of Amaravila Unit.” While the main relief sought is in relation to Pool 8A, the interim relief sought is in relation to Pool 8C. However, from a reading of the writ petition, it appears that the apprehension of the petitioners is as regards enrollment of new workers in Pool 8C. W.P.(C) No.27385 of 2011 2 2. I heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Koshy George, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the submissions made in the writ petition and contended that enrollment of new workers without assessing the vacancies and need is illegal. It is contended that there has been no assessment as required under Paragraph 6B of the Scheme and no notice has been issued inviting applications for registration. 3. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board submitted on instructions that except enrollment of workers under Paragraph 6C of the Scheme for the purpose of providing employment to dependents of workers dying-in-harness, the first respondent has no proposal during this year to enroll new members or to grant fresh registration in any of the Pools or in Pools 8A, 8B and 8C. The learned counsel for the petitioners thereupon submitted that even in the matter of giving registration under Paragraph 6C of the Scheme, the proposal is to give employment to another family member of the very same worker. The learned counsel further submitted that though two sons of a registered headload worker were given employment, they later gave W.P.(C) No.27385 of 2011 3 up the employment and another son is being given employment. The learned counsel contended that employment under Paragraph 6C of the Scheme can be given only once and the right of the dependants to claim registration ceases, when one of the dependants of the deceased headload worker is given registration. In my opinion, if contrary to Paragraph 6C of the Scheme, the dependant of another headload worker is given registration and the petitioners are aggrieved thereby, their remedy is to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of recording the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the first respondent that except for the purpose of giving benefits under paragraph 6C of the Scheme, there is no proposal to enroll new members for the current financial year and with the observation that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the registration given to dependents of any headload worker under Paragraph 6C of the Scheme, it will be open to them to raise a dispute before the competent authority and to have the dispute resolved in accordance with law. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27385 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 31st October, 2011 --------------------------------------