P.S. VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P11 order passed by the 1st respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONERS are the office bearers of registered trade unions representing head load workers in the Nemom area of Thiruvananthapuram District, where the establishment under the name and style, "Venad Steel Corporation", under the proprietorship of the 4th respondent, is situated. The petitioners allege that the said establishment is situated in the place, where the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, has been made applicable by the authorities concerned. They further allege that the husband of the 4th respondent, who is running a scrap business since the last more than 10 years, was engaging the workmen represented by the petitioner Unions without any protest or demur; and recently, he started attempts to engage new head load workers as a part of his bid to avoid the registered head load workers of Unions represented by the petitioners, who were doing work as stated above. The petitioners point out that the husband of the 4th respondent wants to avoid registration of his establishment under the Board and for that, he shifted his business activities to a new location very near to his original establishment and started open attempts to avoid the registered head load workers from being engaged for the loading and unloading work in his business establishment under the pretext that it is a new establishment. The petitioner allege that in Ext.P9 order, it is clearly stated that the head load workers represented by the petitioners are entitled to do loading and unloading work in the 4th respondent's establishment owing to various reasons categorically stated in that order. The District Labour Officer found that the Nemom area, where the establishment which is claimed to be under the proprietorship of the 4th respondent is situated, is a scheme covered area; and there were no attached head load workers having identity cards in the aforesaid establishment and the registered head load workers belonging to Nemom area were doing loading and unloading works in the establishment under the 4th respondent. The petitioners further submit that Ext.P2 applications submitted from the side of the 4th respondent under Rule 26A were rejected by the 3rd respondent as evidenced by Ext.P8 order. Ext.P2 applicants are general workers and not head load workers as defined under Section 2(m) of the Act; it is alleged. The petitioners further allege that ignoring all these aspects, the 1st respondent has passed Ext.P11 order; and on the strength of Ext.P11 order, the 4th respondent and her husband are denying the workmen represented by the petitioner Unions their legitimate right to do loading and unloading work. It is with this background, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, she had admitted the proprietorship of "Venad Steel Corporation". According to her, the said business has no connection with the business run by her husband under the name "ATS Traders". Both the establishments are separate and independently registered. The workers are also different for both the establishments. The head load workers of the petitioner Unions were never engaged by the 4th respondent in her establishment; and the loading and unloading activities in her establishment are done by her own permanent workers as a part of their work; it is contended. According to her, her business is related to scrap materials and the collected materials have to be segregated and sent to various prospective buyers. The workers are engaged by her for all the works and the loading and unloading activities are not regular on all days. As a matter of fact, the local head load workers are even reluctant to load and unload the scrap materials; and therefore, she has got her own set of workers for doing all the jobs in her establishment; it is contended. She further points out that as the petitioner Unions have obstructed the functioning of the establishment, she has approached this Court with WP(C) No. 13826/2009 seeking police protection. She contended that the allegations in the writ petition are totally baseless and hence, denied. Thus, the 4th respondent prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition.