LatestLaws.

com

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941

WP(C).No.33378 OF 2019(V)

PETITIONER:

SHAIK ATHEEK,
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O ABDUL MAJEED, PROPRIETOR,
ROCKLAND, THATTATHUMALA, KILIMANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 601.

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.A.PRAKASH
SRI.M.ZIYAD

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM- 691 306.

2 STATE POLICE CHIEF,

POLICE HEADQUARTERS , VAZHUTHACAUD P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.

3 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,

ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER PUNALUR,
KOLLAM- 691 305.

4 CONVENOR,
(CITU) HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION,
ANCHAL, KOLLAM- 691 306.

5 BIJU,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O RAMACHANDRAN PILLA,
R/O BINDU VILASAM, THEKKEVAYAL, YEROOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
 LatestLaws.com

W.P. (C) No. 33378 of 2019 2

6 SAJI,
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O SREEDHARAN,
SREEDHARAMANGALATH , ALAYAMON P.O, ALENCHERY,
KOLLAM- 691 306.

7 SATHEESAN,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O BHASKARAN,
MANGALATHUPUTHENVEEDU, ALENCHERY,
KOLLAM- 691 306.

8 PRAKASH,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O SATHYAVAN, VISHNUVILASAM,
ALENCHERY, KOLLAM- 691 306.

*9 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS' WELFARE BOARD,
ANCHAL, KOLLAM - 691 306.
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 9TH RESPONDENT AS
PER ORDER IN IA NO.1 OF 2019 DATED 10.12.2019.

SRI.P.P. THAJUDHEEN SPL GP

ADV.SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 LatestLaws.com

W.P. (C) No. 33378 of 2019 3

C.R.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No.33378 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2020.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a person undertaking garden works

on contract basis. He belongs to Kilimanoor in

Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner has been engaged

by a person for a garden work in Kollam District. Pursuant to

the said engagement, on 4.12.2019, the petitioner has brought

a lorry load of garden materials to the work site. It is alleged by

the petitioner that respondents 5 to 8 have obstructed the

unloading work of the said materials on the ground that the

work site is situated in an area to which the functional

operation of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of

Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (the Scheme) framed

under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (the Act) is

extended and that, being workers registered under the

 LatestLaws.com

W.P. (C) No. 33378 of 2019 4

Scheme, they have the exclusive right to carry out the loading

and unloading works in the area. The case set out by the

petitioner in the writ petition is that the activities of the

petitioner do not fall under the Act and the Scheme; that he has

workers to attend all the works including the loading and

unloading of materials into and out of the vehicles and that he

is, therefore, entitled to engage his workers to carry out the

works including loading and unloading works in his work site.

According to the petitioner, the obstruction caused by

respondents 5 to 8 is unlawful and he is, therefore, entitled to

police aid for carrying out the loading and unloading works in

his work site referred to in the writ petition. It is alleged that

police is not extending police aid despite requests. The

petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard

in the writ petition.

2. On 10.12.2019, when the matter was taken up

after notice, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the materials brought to the work site on

04.12.2019 were somehow unloaded and if police aid is not

 LatestLaws.com

W.P. (C) No. 33378 of 2019 5

extended, the petitioner may not be able to bring further

materials to the site to carry out the work. In the light of the

said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned counsel for the contesting respondents as also the

learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Headload Workers

Welfare Board (the Board) were heard in the matter.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board

submitted, on behalf of the Board and also on behalf of the

workers registered under the Scheme, that in the light of the

provisions contained in the Scheme, in so far as the work site

of the petitioner is situated in an area to which the functional

operation of the Scheme is extended, the petitioner is bound

to engage registered workers for carrying out the loading and

unloading works at the site, and if he does not have registered

workers to carry out the loading and unloading works, he is

bound to engage workers registered under the Scheme for

carrying out the loading and unloading works.

4. In the light of the submission made by the

learned Standing Counsel for the Board, the short question

 LatestLaws.com

W.P. (C) No. 33378 of 2019 6

falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled

to carry out the loading and unloading works in his work site

which is situated in an area to which the functional operation of

the Scheme is extended, by engaging workers of his choice.

5. It is seen that the Act is one that has been

enacted to regulate the employment of the headload workers in

the establishments specified therein and to make provisions for

their welfare, for settlement of disputes in respect of their

employment or non-employment and for matters connected

therewith. The establishments specified in the Schedule to the

Act are the following;

“1. Iron and steel markets or shops.

2. Cloth and cotton markets or shops.

3. Grocery markets or shops.

4. Railway yards and goods sheds.

5. Establishments employing workers for loading or unloading

of goods and other operations incidental and connected
thereto.

6. Vegetable markets including onions and potatoes markets.

7. Establishments employing workers for loading, unloading and

carrying of foodgrains and such other work incidental and
connected thereto.
 LatestLaws.com

W.P. (C) No. 33378 of 2019 7

8. Bus stands, boat jetties, landing places of country crafts.

9. Forest supply and sale coupes, timber and firewood depots.

10. Quarries.

11. Markets (including fish and meat markets) and factories

employing workers, which are not covered by any other
entries in this Schedule.

12. Rubber, Tea, Coffee or Cardamom Plantations where workers

are employed or engaged for loading or unloading timber or
wooden logs in or from or to a vehicle, trolly or cart.

13. Establishments employing or engaging workers for loading or

unloading Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinders in or from, or to
a vehicle”.

In terms of the Act, the unorganized sector of headload workers

in the State have been extended a sort of protection by

providing for regularity of their work. The Act was never

intended to snatch away the work of workmen engaged on

regular basis in any establishment and it does not deal with any

issues relating to such workmen. It does not also intend to

cover any engagement of casual nature [See Venkatraman v.

Sub Inspector of Police, 2005(4) KLT 365]. True, Clause 6(1)

of the Scheme provides that no headload worker who is not a

registered headload worker under the provisions of the Kerala

Headload Workers Rules shall be allowed or required to work in

 LatestLaws.com

W.P. (C) No. 33378 of 2019 8

any area to which the Scheme applies from the date of

commencement of the functional operation of the Scheme. But,

as noted, the Act and the Scheme apply only to the

establishments specified in the Schedule to the Act. In other

words, once the functional operation of the Scheme is extended

to an area, the loading and unloading works in the

establishments specified in the Act can be carried out only by

engaging workers registered under the Act [See Theresa Jose

v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2015 (1) KLT 485 (L.B.)]. True, if

there are no registered workers to carry out the loading and

unloading works in such establishments, the works in the said

establishments are to be carried out by engaging workers

registered under the Scheme. But, that does not mean that

once the functional operation of the Scheme is extended to an

area, the workers registered under the Scheme shall be

engaged for every loading and unloading activities in the area.

6. Reverting to the facts, the work site of the

petitioner can never be construed as an establishment

specified in the Act. Further, the loading and unloading works

 LatestLaws.com

W.P. (C) No. 33378 of 2019 9

undertaken by the petitioner and similarly placed persons which

are incidental to the work undertaken by them on contract

basis, to be performed at the work site of their principal can be

regarded only as works of casual nature which are not intended

to be covered at all in terms of Act, as clarified by this Court in

Venkatraman. In the circumstances, according to me, the

petitioner is entitled to carry out the loading and unloading

works in his work sites situated in areas to which the functional

operation of the Scheme is extended, by engaging workers of

his choice. The question is thus answered accordingly.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The first

respondent is directed to afford protection to the petitioner for

carrying out the loading and unloading works in connection with

the garden work undertaken by him in the premises of his

principal by engaging workers of his choice.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

YKB
 LatestLaws.com

W.P. (C) No. 33378 of 2019 10

APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION

CERTIFICATE DATED 31.08.2019 OF THE
PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED

04.12.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE