T.K NADEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by a registered headload worker, who happens to be the pool leader of Pool No. 9 of Erattupetta seeking protection against the party respondents, who are unregistered workers of the area.

(2.) The petitioner states that he and four others are the headload workers of Pool No.9 of Erattupetta holding cards issued under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. It is an area where the functional operation of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 has been extended. They state that respondents 5 to 8 are not workers registered under the Act and Scheme and they are not holding the identity cards as contemplated under clause 6A(3) of the Scheme of 1983. According to the petitioner, though the party respondents were registered workers earlier, they have voluntarily relinquished their membership. Their grievance is that the party respondents have now demanded work and they are causing physical obstruction to the activities of the petitioner and other registered workers. The petitioner state that he submitted a request under the Right to Information Act before the 4th respondent and in the information furnished, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3, the 4th respondent has stated that respondents 5 to 8 have been terminated from the Pool in the year 2009 and that they have no right to engage themselves in headload work to the exclusion of the petitioner and other registered workers. When physical obstruction was caused, the petitioner as well as the other registered workers submitted Ext.P4 petition before the 2nd respondent seeking protection. Complaining of inaction, the petitioner is before this court seeking directions.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. They state that the party respondents were registered workers of the Erattupetta area and they were functioning in that capacity from 1990 onwards. However, in the year 2007, there occurred drastic reduction in work and it became next to impossible for the party respondents to pay the contributions. They decided to resign from the welfare fund and to work freely on mutual trust and coordination. They contend that an agreement was also entered into between themselves that mere resignation from the membership of the welfare fund will not affect their rights to carry on with the work which they have been doing. They have produced copies of the resignation letters submitted before the 4th respondent as well. They deny that the said respondents had in any way obstructed the functioning or the carrying out of the work by the petitioner.