MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An accident to a workman not only upsets the victim and his family but affects the employer as well. If the victim is a headload worker, who is the affected employer and how to meet the liability of compensation are the issues arising for consideration in these cases.

(2.) The validity of paragraph 29 A of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1983 providing for Accident Relief Fund for headload workers is under challenge in these writ petitions. The said paragraph was introduced by way of an amendment to the Scheme with effect from November 2002. The impugned paragraph reads as follows:-

(3.) The main contention of Sri.U.K. Ramakrishnan and Sri Jaju Babu learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the additional welfare levy by the Board is impermissible. Such matters do not fail within the duties and functions of the Board. It has no nexus to the object of the Act. Under the Scheme of the Act it is for the Committee constituted under Section 18 of the Act to take care of the matter. Such Committee is the employer of the headload worker and the liability is of that employer. There is also a contention that it is only the Committee which is competent to collect any levy. Still further it is contended that being a welfare measure it is for the Committee to provide for the compensation in the event of any expenditure and the Board which is not the employer has no jurisdiction to deal with such matters. Learned Government Pleader Smt. Rajasree and the learned Standing Counsel Sri.Sathish Kumar contend that the amendment is within the scheme of the Act and introduced only to safeguard the interests of the employers as well, in the unlikely event of any accident.