PYNADATH GRANITES PVT. LTD. Vs. K. S. JOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of general importance arising in this Writ Petition is how to curb the unlawful activity of obstruction of loading and unloading activities in various commercial and industrial establishments in the State of Kerala on account of non - payment of 'nokkukooli' claimed by the headload workers. It is a matter of common knowledge that 'nokkukooli' is in prevalence in the State of Kerala. It is also a matter of experience in the High Court that hundreds of Writ Petitions are being filed every year complaining of obstruction to loading and unloading activities as well as manhandling of employers on the ground that the employers were not willing to pay 'nokkukooli'.

(2.) In Jayaprakash Vs. Government of Kerala, 2007 (1) KHC 286, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the menace of 'nokkukooli' and held thus:

(3.) The judgment in Jayaprakash Vs. Government of Kerala, 2007 (1) KHC 286 was passed on 1st Dec., 2006. It was directed in the judgment that it shall be applicable not only inter - partes but also to all cases before the authorities under the Headload Workers Act, Rules and Scheme which may arise as a general law on the subject and such authorities shall ensure that law as declared in the said decision is promptly applied by such authorities strictly in letter and spirit. However, by the Kerala Headload Workers (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 27 of 2008) the Kerala Loading and Unloading (Regulation of Wages and Restriction of unlawful Practices) Act, 2002 (Act 10 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Unlawful Practices Act') was repealed, which came into force on 6th Aug., 2008. It is true that in the judgment in Jayaprakash Vs. Government of Kerala, 2007 (1) KHC 286 it was not noticed that the Unlawful Practices Act was in existence. Still, in view of the positive directions in the judgment in Jayaprakash's case, one would expect a rigorous law to be in existence to curb the menace of 'nokkukooli' which is certainly an unlawful practice which came within the purview of the Unlawful Practices Act. Curiously enough, what came after the decision in Jayaprakash Vs. Government of Kerala, 2007 (1) KHC 286 was the repeal of the Unlawful Practices Act, 2002 by the Kerala Headload Workers (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 27 of 2008). Later in Paulson Zacharia Vs. Commissioner of Police, 2014 (4) KHC 549 another Division Bench held that the claim for 'nokkukooli' was an affront to the Constitution of India by an unauthorised and illegal extraction of money by creating a state of threat and deprivation of property. It was also held that the claim of 'nokkukooli' would amount to offences punishable in law and they were anti - social activities.