Jemsons Starach and Derivatives vs State of Kerala and Others

R. Basant, J.—The petitioner has come to this Court again seeking issuance of directions to the second and third respondents-police officials, against alleged obstruction by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 against peaceful conduct of the work of loading and unloading in the establishment/factory of the petitioner.

Petitioner runs a Starch Factory. Tapioca Starch is the raw material. It is brought to the establishment/factory in vehicles. Loading and unloading work used to be performed manually by the loading and the unloading workers. Area is a Scheme covered area. Arrangements are already in place to get the work of loading and unloading done by pool workers registered under the Act and Scheme.

There was a dispute about the loading and unloading of packets having weight exceeding 75 kilos. It is in that context that the matter came to this Court earlier and Ext.P1 judgment was rendered by another Bench of this Court. According to the, petitioner, even thereafter, unnecessary disputes continue to affect peace and harmony at the work site.

What exactly is the present dispute? We spent some time to ascertain the real nature of the dispute. According to the petitioner, in respect of packets weighing less than 75 kilos, loading and unloading work is still being attended to by the pool workers. For packets weighing above 75 kilos, petitioner is making use of a mechanical device. Even while using the mechanical device for transportation of packets weighing above 75 kilos, the services of loading and unloading workers are necessary. But, according to the petitioner, the work involved is much less now. The workers have only got to place the packets in the mechanical device. To be precise, even with the mechanical devices which are being used, the service of loading and unloading workers are necessary though only to a much lesser extent. The petitioner wants the services of loading and unloading workers from the pool for all work relating to packets weighing less than 75 kilos. Even for packets weighing above 75 kilos, he needs the services of the workmen, but that is not only for the purpose of unloading the packets and to place them into the mechanical device. The petitioner accepts that for such work also the loading and unloading workers of the pool are entitled for payments though according to him, only to a much lesser extent.

Respondent No. 5 and 6 represent the pool workers. They have appeared before this Court through a counsel. The counsel submits that this petition is totally misconceived and unnecessary. The petitioner requires the service of loading and unloading workers from the pool. The pool workers are willing to do such work. Both in respect of packets below 75 kilos and above 75 kilos, petitioner requires such services. The remuneration payable is to be fixed. The dispute is only regarding the remuneration payable. That dispute can certainly be resolved by intervention of respondent Nos. 4 and 7. Such remuneration thus payable in accordance with law will have to be paid to pool workers by the petitioner. Any dispute regarding the wages/remuneration payable will have to be resolved in accordance with law. If harmonious settlement by intervention of respondent Nos. 4 and 7 is not possible, resort can certainly be made to the provision of Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act by other. Respondent Nos. 4 and 7 must ensure that such dispute is resolved harmoniously between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6, if possible. At any rate, if such resolution or dispute does not take place, parties will have to resort to the procedure u/s 21.

Police shall certainly afford protection to the petitioner to get the work done. The dispute about the remuneration payable will have to be settled in accordance with Section 21. Appropriate directions can be issued, w are satisfied.

In the result:

a) This petition is allowed.

b) Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall afford protection to the petitioner to get the work of loading and unloading done by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 without any illegal obstruction by them.

c) The remuneration payable for such work shall be settled by discussion between the parties and if such, agreement is not possible, respondent Nos. 4 and 7 shall try to intervene and settle the dispute. If such dispute is not settled even by the intervention of respondent Nos. 4 and, the machinery available u/s 21 of the Act shall be made use of by both parties to resolve that dispute. Wages are agreed as fixed by the authorities u/s 21 shall be paid to the workers for all work done hereafter.