Shameem K.P vs Regional Transport Officer

A.M.Badar, J

Heard all parties.

Contract for transportation of ration articles was awarded to the petitioner on 01.01.2021 for a period of one year by respondents no. 2 and 3, the

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation.

Order at Ext.P8 passed by the 4th respondent- District Labour Officer is impugned in the instant petition by the petitioner contractor. As per this

order, the 4th respondent District Labour Officer had directed the petitioner Contractor to pay an amount of Rs.21/- per quintal for unloading and

stacking the CMR rice from a full body lorry as per condition no. 11 of the order at Ext.P5 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of

Kerala and particularly as a result of Clause No.XI of that order.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact, the State of Kerala by order at Ext.P5 dated 06.02.2021 has fixed the rate of

unloading and stacking of food grains at the rate of Rs.16 per quintal for a stack of ten sacks. This rate is applicable to the contract of the petitioner.

Condition No.XI of the said order regarding the better rate system is not applicable to the case in hand. It is further submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that Headload workers working with respondents 2 and 3 refused to do the work of loading and stacking of food grains transported by the

petitioner by claiming that they are entitled to be paid at the rate of Rs.21 per quintal instead of Rs.16 per quintal as directed by the Government Order

at Ext.P5, because the earlier contractor was paying them at the rate of Rs.21/- and as per Clause XI, they are entitled for the same. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner therefore raised dispute by a communication at Ext.P6 which was referred for adjudication to

the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent, however passed an impugned order at Ext.P8 directing payment of Rs.21/- by totally ignoring the provisions

of Section 21 of the Kerala State Headload Workers Act.

The learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed the petition by contending that in the light of Clause XI of the order

at Ext.P5 issued by the state, as better system of payment of wages at the rate of Rs.21/- was in vogue because of payment of similar amount by the

earlier contractor, the impugned order is perfectly legal and correct.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the 5th respondent also opposed the petition by relying on Clause XI of the Order at Ext.P5.

The mechanism of settlement of dispute is to be found in Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. It reads thus:

Section 21. Settlement of Disputes:-

(1) “Where a dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of work, of any headload

worker exists or is apprehended, the Assistant Labour Officer, having jurisdiction may hold conciliation conferences for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of

the dispute and, if such settlement is not arrived at, send a report of the dispute to the Conciliation Officer.

(2) On receipt of a report under subsection (1), the Conciliation Officer may hold conciliation proceedings and shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of

the dispute, without delay investigate the same and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the

purpose of promoting a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute.

(3) If a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings the Conciliation Officer shall send a report

thereof to the appellate authority.

(4) If a settlement of the dispute or any of the matters in dispute is not arrived at, the Conciliation Officer shall take a decision on the dispute or, as the case may be,

on the matters in respect of which no settlement has been arrived at and shall send a report of the dispute with a copy of his decision to the appellate authority.

(5) The decision of the Conciliation Officer under subsection (4) shall, subject to the decision of the appellate authority under subsection (7), be binding on all parties

to the dispute.

(6) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the conciliation Officer under subsection (4) may, within such time as may be prescribed, appeal to the appellate

authority against such decision.

(7) On receipt of an appeal under subsection (6), the appellate authority shall make such inquiries as it deems fit and after giving the parties an opportunity of being

heard decide the appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal.

 (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the appellate authority shall not stay the operation of the decision of the

Conciliation Officer pending its decision on the appeal except for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing.â€​

On perusal of the complete scheme of settlement of dispute as envisaged by Section 21 of the said Act makes it clear that when the dispute which

is connected with the terms of employment etc, of any Headload worker exists or apprehended, the Assistant Labour Officer having jurisdiction has to

hold conciliation conferences for the purpose of bringing about settlement of such disputes. He has to send that report of the dispute to the conciliation

Officer if the settlement is not possible. Then the conciliation officer has to hold conciliation proceedings for the purpose of settlement of dispute. If

such settlement is not possible, then the conciliation officer has to take a decision on the dispute on its own merit. That decision is then subjected to the

approval of the appellate authority.

In the case in hand, though the petitioner has raised dispute regarding terms of employment of the headload workers and particularly in respect of

wages to be paid to them, instead of adhering to the procedure prescribed by Section 21of the Kerala State Headload Workes Act, the 4th respondent

straight away gave a decision in the matter by directing the petitioner to pay wages at the rate of Rs.21/- per quintal.

The impugned order at Ext.P8 is as such unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the Kerala State Headload Workers Act. The

petition is therefore ordered by quashing and setting aside the order at Ext.P8 and by remitting the matter for settlement of dispute between the parties

to the authorities as prescribed by Section 21 of the Kerala State Headload Workers Act. The petitioner to appear before the concerned Assistant

Labour Officer at 11 a.m. on 09/08/2021 and then to abide by further directions of the said authority. It is expected of the authorities to decide the

matter in respect of the instant dispute as expeditiously as possible and to parties to co-operate with the authorities for the same.