IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
WA NO. 1654 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.20667/2020
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD PARTY:

SAIL STOCKYARD WORKERS UNION (CITU),

T.K. RAMAKRISHNAN MEMORIAL BUILDING, NADAMA,
THRIPUNITHURA-682301,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.K. MOHANAN.

BY ADVS.
LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL
P.R.BANERJI

RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION:

1 M/S.HADIYYA LOGISTICS PRIAVATE LIMITED,

33/602, HADIYYA MANSION, ARKKAKADAVU, VENNALA P.O.,
PIN-682028, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SARJUN SUJAUDEEN.

2 JAYAN C.K.,
SMP COLONY, EROOR SOUTH P.O., THRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683306.

3 SAJEEV D MUDRAKODE,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682301.

4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-682301.

5 KERALA STATE HEAD LOAD WORKERS,

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM-682018,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

6 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-682021.
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022

7 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KOCHI CITY, KOCHI 682011.

8
THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM.

*ADDL.R9 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER (CIRCLE 1), KAKKANAD,

ERNAKULAM (ADDITIONAL R9 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER
THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2022 IN W.A NO.1654/2021)

BY ADVS.
P.M.ZIRAJ
PHILIP T VARGHESE(B/O)
SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB
IRFAN ZIRAJ
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THOMAS T.VARGHESE
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
V.T.LITHA
K.R.MONISHA

SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS-SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.08.2022, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
WA NO. 899 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.20667/2020
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

1 JAYAN C.K.,
AGED 52 YEARS
SMP COLONY,EROOR SOUTH P.O.,THRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM-683 306.

2 SAJEEV D., AGED 50 YEARS,

MUDRAKODE, CHETHARI, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301.

BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THOMAS T.VARGHESE
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
V.T.LITHA
K.R.MONISHA
SHRUTHI SARA JACOB

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7:

1 M/S.HADIYYA LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,

33/602,HADDIYA MANSION ARKKAKADAVU,VENNALA P.O.,682
028,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIRECTOR, SARJUN SAJUDEEN,S/O.SAJUDEEN,
AGED 31 YEARS.

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

HILL PALACE POLICE STATION,THRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM-682 301.

3 THE KERALA STATE HEAD LOAD WORKERS,

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE,ERNAKULAM-682 018.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

THRIKKAKARA,KOCHI-682 021.

5 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

KOCHI CITY,KOCHI-682 011.

6
THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.

*ADDL.R7 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER (CIRCLE 1), KAKKANAD,

ERNAKULAM (ADDITIONAL R7 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER
THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2022 IN W.A NO.899/2022)

BY ADV SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ (B/O)

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.08.2022,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
=================================
W.A No.1654 of 2021
[arising out of the impugned judgment
dated 11.12.2020 in W.P(C) No.20667/2020]
&
W.A No.899 of 2022
[arising out of the impugned judgment
dated 11.12.2020 in W.P(C) No.20667/2020]
=================================
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022

JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
As both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment,

rendered in the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P(C) No.20667/2020,

these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment.

2. The appellants in W.A No.899/2022 are respondents 1 & 2

in the W.P(C) and R1 in the W.A is the writ petitioner and official

respondents 2 to 6 in the W.A are official respondents 3 to 7 in the

W.P(C), whereas W.A No.1654/2021 has been filed by a third party to

the writ proceedings, who has filed the said appeal after securing third

party leave. The said third party appellant in W.A No.1654/2021 claims

to be a Workers' Union, affiliated to the Centre of Indian Trade Unions

(CITU), which is the cause of the headload workers concerned, like the

appellants in W.A No.899/2022.

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
2

3. Heard Sri.Philip T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants in W.A No.899/2022, Sri.Legith T.Kottakkal, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A No.1654/2021,

Sri.P.M.Ziraj, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents

in these appeals (writ petitioner-Establishment),

Sri.N.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-

Kerala Headload Workers' Welfare Board, appearing for the said party

and Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for

the official respondents in these appeals.

4. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil) are as

follows:

“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or

direction directing the third respondent to afford proper and
adequate police protection to the life of directors of petitioner,
its employees, vehicles properties and equipment from the
threat of respondents one and two and their henchmen for
handling the materials in the yard of SAIL at Irmbanam.

B. Direct the third respondent to take proper and adequate

preventive action against respondents one and two and their
henchmen from causing any untoward incident against the
petitioner.

AND

C. Such other writ, direction or order, which deems fit and

proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the
case.”
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
3

5. The case of the writ petitioner was that he has been assigned

with the consignment handling works, as per a contract entered into

between the petitioner concerned and the Steel Authority of India Ltd.

(SAIL), in respect of the works to be handled in a warehouse and

stockyard of the SAIL at Irumbanam, Ernakulam. The broad case

projected by the petitioner concerned is that the work of unloading and

loading of the steel materials in the said warehouse cum stockyard of

the SAIL is mechanised and there is no scope for manual loading and

unloading, etc. The petitioner would state that respondents 1 & 2 in the

W.P(C), who claimed to be headload workers, have demanded that they

should be engaged as headload workers for the abovesaid works in

question, which the petitioner could not concede and that they have

obstructed the works of the petitioner concerned and at their instance,

quite a few persons have trespassed into the premises of the petitioner,

which has created serious problems in managing the work of the

petitioner. Further that, he has demanded for police protection, which

has not been acted upon by the police authorities concerned. It is in the

light of these aspects that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ

Petition (Civil), with the aforesaid prayers.

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
4

6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has

rendered the impugned judgment on 11.12.2020, disposing of the

instant W.P(C) No.20667/2020, with the finding that the work in the

warehouse in question can be done only using heavy machinery and

cranes and that, in the light of the settled legal position, no demand for

loading and unloading work can be raised when loading work requires

special skill and is carried out with the help of machines and such

machines are operated by skilled workers and any assistance, required

for the purpose of loading, like slinging or strapping the heavy sheets

and coils, has also to be done by workers, who are trained for that

purpose. However, if there is any manual workload, the petitioner will

have to necessarily engage the service of the registered pool headload

workers. It was further found therein that, the contesting respondents

therein (appellants herein) or their men will have no right to claim that

they should be engaged, to the exclusion of machines or skilled workers,

who operate the said equipment. In that view of the matter, the learned

Single Judge has disposed of the W.P(C) by ordering that, in the event

of respondents 1 & 2 in the W.P(C) or their men causing any obstruction

to the handling of consignment by the petitioner concerned in the SAIL

godown with the aid of machines and skilled workers, the police shall
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
5

grant protection, to enable the petitioner concerned to carry on the

work. But that, if there is any manual headload work, the petitioner

shall engage registered pool workers, etc. It is the abovesaid verdict of

the learned Single Judge that is under challenge in the present intra

court appeals, filed under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

7. We have heard both sides in extenso on more than three

occasions. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions as well

as the pleadings and materials on record.

8. A brief reference to the factual aspects in this case would be

pertinent :

(a) As per the terms and conditions of the

contract/agreement, entered into between the

petitioner concerned and the Steel Authority of India

Ltd., the petitioner concerned, as the consignment

handling agent, is required to carry out loading and

unloading of Thermo Mechanically Treated (TMT)

beams, channels, coils, heavy metal sheets, using

cranes as well as machines, by employing skilled

workers. The essence of the case of the petitioner

concerned is that the work is fully mechanised and,

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
6

going by the sensitive nature of the work involved,

there is no question of engaging any unskilled workers

and the petitioner has been permitted by the SAIL to

engage skilled workers. Hence, the works are carried

out only through skilled workers and, having regard to

the delicate nature of the work, there is no scope for

engaging unskilled headload workers, like the

appellants herein, etc. and that obstruction caused by

them is illegal and that therefore, the petitioner has

sought for police protection, as the police is not

carrying out their duties.

(b) Per contra, the case of the appellants

herein/respondents 1 & 2 in the W.P(C), as set up in

their pleadings is that they have been working in the

very same SAIL stockyard for more than 15 years

under various contractors, who have been awarded the

said work by the SAIL, since the year 2006 and that

many of the works involved are purely engaged in

manual loading and unloading activities and therefore,

the appellants have been consistently engaged for

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
7

doing such loading and unloading works by the

previous contractors. Further that, the previous

contractor for the year 2006, by name M/s

F.M.Transports, who is the proprietor/managing

partner, was none other than the father of the present

writ petitioner. Further that, the subsequent

contractors also engaged the headload workers, like

respondents 1 & 2 in the W.P(C). That, these aspects

are also borne out from the settlement arrived at

between the then contractor and the headload workers,

as it is discernible from Ext.R1(c) judgment dated

09.06.2006 rendered by the Division Bench of this

Court in W.P(C) No.10265/2006, filed by the then

previous consignment agency, viz. M/s F.M.Transport,

as well as Ext.R1(b), which is the list of 21 registered

workers mentioned therein, out of which 12 headload

workers are presently available for doing the said

work, etc. They would also state that they have

secured registration as headload workers of M/s

F.M.Transport with the Assistant Labour Officer,

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
8

Ernakulam, in terms of Rule 26A of the Headload

Worker's Rules. They would strongly deny that the

loading and unloading and shifting of materials in the

SAIL stockyard, now run by the writ petitioner, is done

by using mechanized devices and that only pick and

carry type cranes are used in the SAIL stockyard and

that those devices require the assistance and

employment of headload workers, like the present

appellants.

(c) They would strongly deny that any untoward incidents

have occurred on 25.09.2020, as alleged in the W.P(C)

or on any other day. Further that, it is only the present

writ petitioner, after taking over as the contractor of

SAIL, who has denied work to these headload workers

and that being aggrieved thereby, they have

approached the District Labour Officer, who is the

statutory authority under the Kerala Headload

Workers Act, 1978. These averments of respondents 1

& 2 in the W.P(C) have been rebutted in the reply

affidavit, filed by the writ petitioner in the W.P(C), by

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
9

stating that the said parties are not workers who are

registered headload workers and nor have they been

employed by the SAIL or their contractors in any point

of time and that they do not have any valid identity

cards under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers

Rules and they are not attached to any pools in the

area, in terms of clause 6(a) of the scheme framed

under the abovesaid Act, etc. Further that, Ext.R1(e)

identity cards would only reveal that Exts.R1 & R2 in

the W.P(C) and others are workers of M/s. Southern

Transport Company and nothing more, etc.

9. Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single

Judge in the W.P(C), the respondent-District Labour Officer,

Ernakulam has filed a report dated 06.11.2020, stating various aspects

on the points on which this Court wanted clarifications in the W.P(C).

The contents of the said report dated 06.11.2020, submitted by the

respondent-District Labour Officer, Ernakulam are as follows :

“a) Nature of work which is being carried out by the

petitioner in the SAIL Stockyard?
The operations currently being carried out at the SAIL
stockyard at Irumbanam is loading and unloading operations of
TMT beams, channels, Coils, Heavy metal sheets etc, using cranes
and machines.
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
10

b) Whether the entire handling work can be carried out

using machines and the nature of equipment used by the petitioner?
Loading and unloading operations are done using
mechanized devices like crane, forklift, etc. Attaching sling to the
machine and cranes for such loading unloading operations are
done using manual labour. It has also been noticed that a former
contractor, M/s F. M. Transports employed manual labour for
lifting metal plates using bars, stacking, attaching slings, etc,
during their operations.

c) Whether the services of headload workers are required

for the purpose of handling? Whether the work claimed by the
respondents 1 and 2 are strapping the heavy steel girders to the
crane and nothing more?
Though loading and unloading operations are done using
mechanized devices like crane, forklift, etc, attaching sling to the
machine and cranes for such loading unloading operations are
done using manual labour. The same are being done by headload
workers as a part of loading and unloading works in common
practice.

d) Whether the respondents 1 and 2 or the other workers

who claim work are holding cards issued under Rule 26A of the
Headload Workers Rules? Respondent l and 2 and few other
workers have been granted registration under Rule 26A of the
Headload Workers Rules for the purpose of doing headload work
under the employer M/s F. M. Transports, Vytilla on 30.03.2006.
It is noted that the aforesaid company previously had a contract
with Steel Authority of India Ltd, for loading and unloading
operations at SAIL stockyard, Irumbanam.

e) Whether the contract entered into between SAIL and the

petitioners require the contractor to employ manual labour for
carrying out the handling work?
The contract between SAIL and the petitioners does not
specify the need for loading and unloading operations using
manual labour.

f) Such other details that are brought to the notice of the

DLO.
Though loading and unloading operations are done using
mechanized devices like crane, forklift, etc attaching sling to the
machine and cranes for such loading unloading operations are
done using manual labour. Lifting metal plates using bars for the
purpose of strapping, stacking, attaching slings, etc, needs manual
labour. The same are being done by headload workers as a part of
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
11

loading and unloading works in common practice.”

10. The abovesaid report, filed by the respondent-District

Labour Officer would broadly disclose that the works in the

consignment handling agency, run by the petitioner concerned, mainly

involves loading and unloading of TMT beams, channels, coils, heavy

metal sheets, etc., using cranes and machines. On this basis, the

learned Single Judge has concluded that the work is carried out by

skilled workers, trained for the said particular purpose. Sec.2(m) of the

Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 defines 'Headload Worker' as

follows :

"Sec.2(m) "headload worker" means a person employed or engaged

directly or through a contractor in or for an establishment,
whether for wages or not, for loading or unloading or
carrying on head or person or in a trolly any article or
articles in or from or to a vehicle or any place in such
establishment or stacking articles, excluding delicate or
sophisticated articles, in a vehicle or unloading by sliding
using manual labour from a mechanically propelled vehicle
or a person who does in connection with the work in ports,
the works likes filling of fertilizers in sacks, weighing and
stitching of sacks, bundling, breaking seals of containers,
stacking and includes any person not employed by any
employer or contractor but engaged in the loading or
unloading or carrying on head or person or in a trolly any
article or articles for wages in or from or to a vehicle, or any
place in such establishment or stacking articles excluding
delicate or sophisticated articles in a vehicle or unloading by
sliding using manual labour from a mechanically propelled
vehicle but does not include a person engaged by an
individual for domestic purposes.

Explanation I: For the purpose of this clause, "a person

engaged by an individual for domestic purposes" means any
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
12

person engaged by an individual for,--

(i) shifting including transportation of furniture, personal

effects and other household articles for domestic use; or

(ii) working in connection with the shifting of articles of a

dwelling house of a person including work in connection with
religious or social or public functions; or

(iii) cutting, removing, shifting and transportation of trees

and wood for personal use; or

(iv) constructing or repairing and maintenance of house

including the shifting and transportation of construction
materials, equipments or machinery for personal use and not
for the purpose of trade; or

(v) dismantling, demolishing and shifting of old building

materials or equipments including their transportation which
is not for industrial or commercial purpose; or

(vi) shifting and transportation of animals for personal use;

or

(vii) shifting and transportation of materials including

agricultural implements, agricultural machinery, raw
materials, agricultural produces, other materials related to
agricultural operations in such person's land; or

(viii) doing such other work or activity or process which the

Government may, by notification in the Gazette, specify to be
a domestic purpose;

Explanation II-- For the purpose of this clause, "delicate or

sophisticated articles" mean articles which require to be
handled by trained or skilled persons;"

11. Sec.9A of the Act provides as follows :

"Sec.9A. Engaging the services of headload workers.- (1)

Subject to the provisions of this Act, an employer shall
engage a headload worker registered under the Act in
connection with the work of his establishment;
Provided that in the case of works which require
assistance of skilled persons and which are to be done with
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
13

due diligence or require the aid of machinery, such works

may be done by engaging the persons having such skill or
by the machinery, as the case may be.
(2) Every Headload worker shall be entitled to
wages as prescribed by the Government under the
provisions of this Act only if their services have been
engaged by the employer or the owner of an establishment."

12. Sec.2(m) of the Act would broadly define 'Headload Worker'

to mean a person who has been engaged directly or through a

contractor in or for an establishment, whether for wages or not, for the

purpose of loading or unloading or carrying on head or person or in a

trolley any article or articles in or from or to a vehicle or any place in

such establishment. The said definition would also encompass its

ambit, a person who has been employed for stacking articles, excluding

delicate or sophisticated articles, in a vehicle or unloading by sliding,

using manual labour from a mechanically propelled vehicle. Sec.9A(1)

of the Act, introduced by an amendment, as per State Act 13 of 2018

and the Proviso thereto, would stipulate that, in the case of works which

require assistance of skilled persons and which are to be done with due

diligence require the aid of machineries, such works could be done by

engaging persons having such skill or by the machinery. Hence, going

by the cumulative impact of the definition of 'Headload Workers', as per

Sec.2(m) read with Sec.9A of the Act, would lead to the situation that,
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
14

where the work involved is not manual based loading and unloading

activities, but work that is to be done in a mechanised manner, by using

machines, etc. and where the works require the assistance of skilled

persons, which are to be done with due diligence or require the aid of

machinery, such works would be allotted by the

establishment/management to skilled workers, having such skill, for

the said purposes or by the machinery. In such a scenario, persons,

who claim to be headload workers, for the purpose of carrying out

manual based loading and unloading activities, cannot as a matter of

right demand that the work should necessarily be allotted to them to

the exclusion of such skilled workers or machines.

13. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in

decisions as in Timber Merchant Association, Pala & Ors. v.

Superintendent of Police, Kottayam & Ors. [2016 (1) KHC 841

(DB)], in para.9 thereof, that when loading and unloading activities are

carried out by mechanical devices, then, persons who claim to be

headload workers, have no right to demand extra charges or

'Nokkukooli' in that regard and that such person, who claim to be

headload workers, have no right to prevent the management from

carrying out the business by using mechanical devices, etc.

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
15

14. A perusal of the aforementioned report of the respondent-

District Labour Officer would indicate that clause (a) thereof would

clearly indicate that the loading and unloading operations of TMT

beams, channels, coils, heavy metal sheets, etc., are being done using

cranes and machines. Therefore, the said work is a mechanised process

of work. This aspect is again reiterated in clause (b) of the said report,

wherein it is stated that loading and unloading operations are done

using mechanised devices, like crane, forklift, etc.

15. However, it is stated in clause (b) of the said report that

attaching sling to the machines and cranes, for such loading and

unloading operations, are done using manual labour and that the

former contractor, M/s F.M.Transport, employed manual labour for

lifting metal plates, using bars, stacking, attaching slings, etc., during

their operations. However, it is again repeated that attaching sling to

the machine and cranes for such loading and unloading operation are

done using manual labour and the same are being done by headload

workers, as a part of loading and unloading works in common practice.

16. Clause (d) of the report deals with the registration of

respondents 1 & 2 in the W.P(C) as well as few other workers as

headload workers, in terms of Rule 26A of the aforesaid Rules and that
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
16

those workers were engaged by the previous contractor M/s F.M

Transports, Vytilla on 30.03.2006.

17. Clause (e) of the said report would explicate that the

contract between the SAIL and the writ petitioners concerned does not

specify the need for loading and unloading operations using manual

labour.

18. Clause (f) of the said report would again indicate that

loading and unloading operations are done using mechanized devices

like crane, forklift, etc. However, it is again reiterated therein that

attaching sling to the machine and cranes for such loading and

unloading operations are done using manual labour. Further that,

lifting metal plates using bars, for the purpose of strapping, stacking,

attaching slings, etc., needs manual labour and that such manual labour

is being done by headload workers, as part of the loading and unloading

works in common practice.

19. A reading of the said report would indicate that,

predominantly, the nature of the work of loading and unloading

activities, carried out in the SAIL godown, through the writ petitioner

concerned, is essentially using mechanized operations, which would

require skilled workers.

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
17

20. However, some aspects in Clause (b) (c) & (f) of the

abovesaid report of the DLO would indicate that, attaching slings to

machines and cranes for such loading and unloading operations are

done using manual labour. It is also stated, in Clause B thereof, that the

former contractor, M/s.F.M.Transports had employed manual labour

for lifting metal plates, using bars, stacking, attaching slings, etc, during

their operations. However, in relation to similar facts stated in Clauses

(c) and (f) of the abovesaid report, what is stated by the DLO is

essentially that such works have been done by Headload workers, as

part of loading and unloading works in common practice. It is not

stated, with precision and cogency, that those works mentioned therein

were actually being done by headload workers as part-time unloading

works in the present establishment, run by the present writ petitioner.

On the other hand, what is stated is that the abovesaid factual comment

is regarding a common practice in such similar establishments. That

does not necessarily imply that such works have infact been done in the

present establishment, run by the present writ petitioner etc. Of course,

the latter part of Clause (b) of the report would indicate that the former

contractor, M/s.F.M.Transports had employed manual labour for lifting

metal plates, using bars, stacking, attaching slings, etc, during their
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
18

operations. Both sides have made rival submissions on the scope of

availability or otherwise of manual works in the petitioner

establishment, as made out in Clauses (b), (c) & (f) of the abovesaid

report of the DLO. But the predominant factual aspect that has emerged

from the abovesaid report of the DLO is that, the major works in the

petitioner establishment are loading and unloading operations, which

are essentially using mechanized operations, which may not involve

much manual labour. Where the work in question is exclusively or

predominantly done using mechanized devices or would predominantly

require skilled workers, then such works cannot be demanded as a right

by headload workers, who can do manual loading and unloading works

and it is a prerogative of the management to allot such works to skilled

workers of their choice. That is the impact flowing out from Section

2(m) and Section 9(a) of the Act. It is taking note of these aspects that

the learned Single Judge has held that the headload workers cannot

demand loading and unloading works in the petitioner concern, which

requires special skill and which is to be carried out with the help of

machines. It has also been held thus that, if the machines are operated

by skilled workers and if any assistance is required for the purpose of

loading, like slinging or strapping the heavy sheets and coils, that also
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
19

has to be done by workers, who are trained for that purpose. We are not

in a position, in any manner, to hold that the abovesaid conclusions,

arrived at by the learned Single Judge is unreasonable or illegal. On the

other hand, we are of the view that the abovesaid conclusions, arrived at

by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, are correct and

proper. However, the learned Single Judge has further held that if there

is any manual headload work, the petitioner will have to necessarily

engage the services of registered pool workers. As to the availability or

otherwise of any manual based headload work, there has been great

divergence between the writ petitioner management and the appellants.

21. We expressed our difficulties in adjudicating on certain

factual disputes, which have emerged in the rival case set up by the writ

petitioner management and the writ appellants. The workers have also

fairly apprised us that this Court need not adjudicate on such issues as

to the availability or otherwise of manual based headload work. This is

essentially so, as the learned Advocates for the writ appellants would

point out, that such factual disputes, as to the availability or otherwise

of manual work, could be settled through adjudication, as envisaged in

Section 21 of The Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. Counsel for the

writ petitioner also does not have any serious objection to the said
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
20

course of action suggested by the writ appellants. Further, the writ

petitioner management has not challenged the specific direction issued

by the learned Single Judge, in the latter part of paragraph 12 of the

impugned judgment, that if there is any manual headload work, the writ

petitioner will have to necessarily engage the services of the registered

pool workers. The writ appellants would point out that 12 headload

workers, including the two writ appellants in WA No.899/2022, have

already secured registered headload pool worker status, in terms of

Annexure-A1 proceedings dated 26.03.2021, issued by the Chairperson

of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, in terms of Clause 6(a)

of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment &

Welfare), Scheme 1983. Hence, it is ordered that the impugned

directions, issued by the learned Single Judge, for affording Police

Protection to the petitioner, subject to the terms and conditions in the

impugned judgment will stand confirmed. However, the issue as to the

availability or otherwise of manual based headload work in the

petitioner concern would require adjudication, in view of the factual

disputes between the writ petitioner management and the writ

appellants. Learned Advocates for the writ appellants in these cases

would submit that the headload workers concerned have already

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
21

preferred Annexure-A2 complaint (as produced in WA No.1654/2021)

to the Assistant Labour Officer concerned and that the said complaint is

one raised under Sec.21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978.

Going by the prescriptions in Sec.21 of the Act, a complaint of this

nature will have to be initially entertained and considered by an officer

of the rank of Assistant Labour Officer and thereafter, it is for him, if

required, to refer the matter to the District Labour Officer.

22. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Assistant Labour Officer,

Ernakulam will immediately take up for consideration the matter in

Annexure-A2 complaint (as produced in WA No. 1654/2021) and, after

affording reasonable opportunity to the writ appellants herein as well as

to the writ petitioner management, may take further course of action

thereon, in terms of Section 21 of the abovesaid Act, so that the matter

could be concluded and finalised in accordance with the said provisions

of the said Act in a time bound manner and within a reasonable time

limit. The impugned directions and orders of the learned Single Judge

in the impugned judgment in the WP(C) will stand modified and

extended, as above. No other interdiction is called for in the matter. The

respondent ALO and the respondent DLO may ensure that the

proceedings, in terms of Section 21, on the matters raised in Annexure-

W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022
22

A2 complaint may be finalized and completed without much delay,

preferably within a period of 4 to 5 months.

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE

Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
vgd / Nsd
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022

APPENDIX OF WA NO.1654/2021

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE R1-(A) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE-STRAPPED BUNDLES OF 40

FEET LONG TMT BARS WEIGHING 4 TO 15 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(B) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE-STRAPPED BUNDLES OF MS

FLAT WEIGHING 3 TONS TO 5 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(C) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE-STRAPPED BUNDLES OF MS

PLATE/SHEET WEIGHING 10 TONS TO 15 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(D) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE- STRAPPED BUNDLES OF M.S

ANGLES WEIGHING 5 TONS TO 10 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(E) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE- STRAPPED BUNDLES OF

BEAM/JOIST WEIGHING 5 TONS TO 10 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(F)
TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF COIL WEIGHING 5 TONS TO 30
TONS
W.A No.1654/2021
&
W.A No.899/2022

APPENDIX OF WA NO.899/2022

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE R1-(A) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE-STRAPPED BUNDLES OF 40

FEET LONG TMT BARS WEIGHING 4 TO 15 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(B) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE-STRAPPED BUNDLES OF MS

FLAT WEIGHING 3 TONS TO 5 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(C) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE-STRAPPED BUNDLES OF MS

PLATE/SHEET WEIGHING 10 TONS TO 15 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(D) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE-STRAPPED BUNDLES OF

M.S ANGLES WEIGHING 5 TONS TO 10 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(E) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF PRE-STRAPPED BUNDLES OF

BEAM/ JOIST WEIGHING 5 TONS TO 10 TONS

ANNEXURE R1-(F) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF COIL WEIGHING 5 TONS TO 30

TONS