ANIL KUMAR Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against Exts. P4 and P5 decisions rendered by the respondents 2 and 1 respectively, rejecting an application submitted by the petitioner seeking recognition of a trade union, to which he is the District Secretary, under the Kerala Recognition of Trade Unions Act, 2010. Exhibit P1 application was submitted before the 1st respondent seeking recognition of the trade union for the industrial establishment of the 'District Committee of the Headload Workers Welfare Board', Ernakulam. The 1st respondent had issued Ext. P5 letter stating that the application cannot be considered because there exist no employer-employee relationship between the Headload Workers Welfare Board and the employees registered with the Board. It is mentioned that the Welfare Board is only regulating employment of the headload workers registered under it and the workers are engaged for private establishments. The Board is only distributing the amounts of wages deposited by such establishments. Therefore no referendum can be conducted among the registered, employees of the Welfare Board for recognition of any trade union.

(2.) Contention of the petitioner is that, the reasons mentioned in Ext. P5 is not legally sustainable. It is contended that Welfare Board is recognised as the employer with respect to general headload workers registered under the relevant scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on a decision of this court in Head Load Workers Welfare Board v. Moidutty, 2000 3 KerLT 523) wherein it is held that the registered workers in an area where the scheme is in operation, liability with respect to payment of Workmen's Compensation is on the statutory committee constituted under the Headload Workers Act. This court observed that the committee is the deemed employer and in view of definition of the term 'employment' contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, the 'employer' is liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) It is true that employment of general headload workers registered with the statutory committee of the Welfare Board, where the scheme is implemented, is regulated for all purposes of their employment by the said committee. For the purpose of employment the committee can be deemed as 'employer' of such registered workers. But issue involved in this case relates to recognition of a trade union under the Kerala Recognition of Trade Unions Act, 2010. S. 4 of the said Act enables any registered trade union to apply to the Registrar for issuance of a certificate of recognition, recognising the said trade union for any industrial establishment or for a class of industries. The term 'industrial establishment' is defined under S. 2(e) of the Act as having the same meaning as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So also, the term 'industry' is defined in S. 2(f) as having the same meaning as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board constituted under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, for regulating employment of the Headload workers and for providing job security to them, or any statutory committee constituted under the Welfare Board, cannot at any stretch of imagination be considered as an 'industrial establishment' or an 'industry' coming within the purview of Kerala Recognition of Trade Unions Act, 2010. Therefore Ext. P1 application submitted for recognition of the trade union to which the petitioner is the District Secretary, as a recognised trade union for the 'District Committee of the Headload Workers Welfare Board', is totally misconceived and unsustainable. Under the above mentioned circumstances this court finds no illegality or infirmity with the decision taken by the 1st respondent in refusing to entertain the application for recognition.