AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Giri, J.—Petitioner claims to be the Managing Partner of the firm M/s. Popular Traders engaged in the business of wholesale dealership of grocery in Karingallathani, Malappuram District. According to the petitioner, he has three permanent workers attached to the shop and they are registered workers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, with identity cards. Petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that he has permanent registered workers to do loading and unloading work, he is prevented from doing so, by respondents 3 and 4. A plea for protection was not reached to. Hence this writ petition.
A detailed counter affidavit have been filed by respondents 3 and 4 where it is contended that registration of the permanent workers of the petitioner was without their knowledge and they have preferred any appeal before the District Labour Officer. Reference has been also made to Ext.R3(a) which amounts to an appeal by the Chairman of the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board.
Petitioner as an employer is entitled to engage his own permanent workers, to do loading and unloading even in scheme covered area, subject to the condition that such workers should also be registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the scheme. If he wants to engage other workers in the scheme covered area, then he should necessarily engage persons from the pool.
Under such circumstances, objection if any by respondents 3and 4 against the petitioner for doing loading and unloading work in his establishment with his permanent registered workers cannot be countenanced and such obstruction would be illegal.
If the respondents are aggrieved by the registration of the workers as per Exts.P1 to P3, they may take up the matter before the appellate authority.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford necessary and adequate protection to the petitioner to carry on loading and unloading work in his establishment M/s. Popular Traders with his permanent registered workers covered by Exts.P1 to P3 without being obstructed in that regard by respondents 3 and 4. It is made clear that this direction will not stand in the way of any independent decision being taken by the District Labour Officer either on Ext.R3(a) or on the appeal stated to have filed by respondents 3 and 4. It is further made clear that direction for police protection shall continue to be operated till the DLO takes a decision. If an adverse decision to the petitioner is taken by the DLO, the petitioner will be bound to engage workers from the pool.