THRISSUR DISTRICT LOADING AND UNLOADING GENERAL WORKERS UNION Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Union of head load workers in the Pambady area in Thiruvilwamala affiliated to the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), who challenged the registration granted to respondents 4 and 5 under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act'). Respondents 4 and 5 are said to be affiliated to the 3rd respondent Union.

(2.) THE specific contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that, on 30.01.2008 there was a settlement arrived at under Section 21 (1) of the Act as evidenced at Ext. P1. In the settlement, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent Union were participated. Specifically 56 employees, whose names were shown in the list appended to the Memorandum of Settlement, were allowed to continue the loading and unloading work in the area which, admittedly is a Scheme notified area.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents relies on a judgment of this Court reported in Muhammed Shafeek v. District Labour Officer : (2015 (1) KLT 314), to contend that the Union of workers have absolutely no interest in the matter and this Court has declared that, in considering registration under Rule 26A, the interest of the workers are protected by the Board and there is no need for the Union to be heard. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however, distinguishes the said judgment on the ground that, it refers to attached workers under Rule 26A and the said principle cannot apply to registration of workers under the Act who are attached to the Pool constituted by the Board under the provisions of the Act. On a reading of the afore cited judgment, this Court is of the opinion that, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted. Hence, what survives for consideration is to the interference to be caused on Ext. P4 order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.