HADIYYA LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) is having a warehouse/stockyard at Irumbanam, Ernakulam. The petitioner has been assigned with the consignment handling works as per a contract entered into between the petitioner and SAIL. As the consignment handling agent, the petitioner is required to carry out loading and unloading of TMT beams, channels, coils, heavy metal sheets using cranes as well as machines by employed skilled employees. The petitioner states that the respondents are obstructing the work claiming that they have the right to handle the work of loading and unloading inside the warehouse. They contend that on 25.9.2020, the respondents 1 and

(2.) along with several other workers trespassed into the stockyard premises and threatened the officers and employees of the petitioner claiming that they have the right to handle the materials inside the yard. Ext.P3 complaint was lodged by the Branch Manager before the 3rd respondent seeking police assistance. Later, Ext.P4 complaint was lodged by the petitioner. However, no assistance was granted. According to the petitioner, they are bound to comply with the conditions stipulated by SAIL in an expeditious manner if there is any delay, they are likely to be termed as defaulters. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for issuance of directions to the third respondent to afford protection to the life of directors of the petitioner, its employees, vehicles and properties from any threat of the respondents one and two for handling materials in the yard of SAIL at Irumpanam. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter-affidavit. It is contended that the petitioners have been working in the SAIL stockyard for more than 15 years under various contractors and hence have acquired the right to be engaged for the handling work inside the warehouse. They contend that in the year 2006, M/s. F.M. Transports, another concern of which the father of the petitioner was the Managing partner, became the successful bidder for consignment handling. Alleging that obstruction was caused by the headload workers, M/s. F.M.Transport had filed W.P.(C) No. 10265/2006 before this Court and the matter was ultimately settled at the instance of the District Labour Officer. M/s. F.M.Transport had agreed that 15 existing headload workers and 6 of their employees would be permitted to work in the SAIL stockyard. The headload workers were consequently registered as headload workers of M/s. F.M.Transport with the Assistant Labour Officer, Ernakulam. The respondents 1 and 2 were issued cards under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. The respondents 1 and 2 have denied that the loading, unloading, and shifting of materials in the SAIL stockyard is done using mechanised devices. According to them, only pick and carry type cranes are used in the SAIL stockyard. Those devices require the assistance and employment of headload workers like respondents 1 and 2 and several others. They deny that any incident of the nature alleged had taken place on 25.9.2020 or on any other day. Being aggrieved by the denial of employment, they had submitted a detailed complaint before the District Labour Officer and the said authority has been initiated steps to resolve the disputes.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. In their reply, they have stated that the respondents 1 and 2 and other workers are not registered headload workers, nor have they been employed by SAIL at any point of time. They do not have any valid identity cards issued under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. They are not attached to any of the pools in the area and no amount is being paid by or through the board. They would point out that the identity cards produced before this Court was issued in the year 2006 and the employer made mention of in the card is F.M.Transport, Vytila. The contract between SAIL and M/s. F.M.Transport had expired in the year 2011. Thereafter, Southern Transport Company became the new contractors. In so far as R 1 (e) identity cards are concerned it is pointed out that those cards would only reveal that the respondents 1 and 2 and others are workers of Southern Transport Company and nothing more. It is further stated that the petitioner does not intend to deny the employment of respondents 1 or 2 or the other workers in the warehouse and stockyard of SAIL. However, as the loading and unloading works are done exclusively with heavy machinery and that too with trained workers, the petitioners or any other registered headload worker cannot claim that they should be engaged.