AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amit Rawal, J
Ext.P3 dated 15.12.2021 of the District Labour Officer and Ext.P14 of the Appellate Authority constituted under the Headload Workers Welfare Act dated 20.1.2022 have been assailed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is the registered association of traders and merchants falling in Thrissur District whereas respondents Nos.1 to 4 are the trade unions representing loading and unloading workers employed under the 5th respondent i.e., Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board, Thrissur. The rate of wages payable for loading and unloading works were fixed by the 5th respondent. In the year, 2018, there was a dispute with regard to revision of loading and unloading charges between the petitioner and respondent No.4. The matter was referred to the 6th respondent District Labour Officer and under the provisions of Section 21(4) of the Headload Workers Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), increased the rates by 20% vide Ext.P1 order dated 30.6.2018. An appeal was preferred before the 7th respondent Labour Commissioner which was dismissed as per the order dated 14.9.2018. The increase of wages at the rate of 20% as per Ext.P1 was for the period from 15.6.2018 to 14.6.2020.
Respondents 1 to 4 again sought the revision of wages by making an application; series of meetings were held and vide Ext.P3 order dated 15.12.2021, wages were revised for the period from 15.6.2020 to 14.6.2022. Keeping in view the trade recession of covid, the wages of freight workers in the old municipal area were revised by 17% to be effective only from 15.6.2021 by clarifying that no arrears of wages on the revised rate shall be levied. In appeal, the Appellate Authority vide Ext.P14 impugned order dated 20.1.2022 changed the date of effectiveness of its applicability instead of 15.6.2021 to 1.11.2021 to 30.1.2022 and from 1.2.2022 to 30.6.2023, there has to be a further increase of 3%.
Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred by the petitioner in the absence of any challenge by any competent authority could not have enhanced the rates as noticed above for a limited period, from 17% to 20%. The order Ext.P1 passed on 30.6.2018 was effective from 15.6.2018 to 14.6.2020 and at that time, there was no covid pandemic. As per Exts.P8 to P12, the prevailing rates for loading and unloading charges in different parts of Thrissur District were far lesser than the rates fixed as per Ext.P3. The 7th respondent Deputy Labour Commissioner acknowledged that the Thrissur market had remained closed for a longer period on account of pandemic and not only the workers had lost working days, the traders also had considerable fall in their income. While exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under Section 21(6), the amount cannot be increased for a period as noticed above.
On the other hand, Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel representing the 5th respondent opposed the aforementioned prayer and submitted that the orders are perfectly legal and justifiable.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
I am of the view that the Appellate Authority could not have increased the additional amount of 3% for the period from 1.2.2022 to 30.6.2023. The order revising the effective dates instead of 15.6.2022, to 1.11.2021 to 30.6.2023, keeping in view the closure of the market with effect from 1.2.2022 to 30.6.2023, cannot be faulted with. As regards the imposition of 17% increase viz.a.viz the other orders where there had been increase of 14% as per Ext.P8, the orders were passed keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that particular case of that particular area. It is a matter on record that the covid pandemic had set in March 2020 and continued for a number of months, when the first wave was little over, again erupted the second wave. The third wave also erupted in December, 2021. On that account the effective date in my view by the Appellate Authority is perfectly correct. The increase in 17% viz. a viz. the other cases as claimed by the petitioner to the extent of 14% in my view is justified as after the lock down, the first expansion and the second expansion, the business had reopened and attempts were reached to arrive at a consensus at grass root level. In fact after the lock down, all the sectors had reopened. The increase of 3% for a part of the total period from 1.11.2021 to 30.6.2023 is not justifiable and is hereby set aside.
With the aforementioned modification in Ext.P14 order, Writ Petition stands partly allowed.