AMMINI KARNAN Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these cases are conducting rice mills. The petitioners in O. P. No. 20627 of 1996 are challenging exhibit P- 11 and exhibit P-14 orders. Exhibit P-11 is an order passed by the conciliation officer in terms of Section 21 (4) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 (Act 20 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Exhibit P14 is the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 21 (7) of the Act in an appeal filed by the petitioners against exhibit P-11. The petitioners in O. P. No. 202 of 1997 challenge exhibit P-4 and exhibit P-7, similar orders passed by the respective authorities in their case. The respondents in these two cases are the same. The petitioners also seek a declaration that they have fundamental right to employ workers of their own choice to do all the works including loading and unloading in their rice mills. I will deal with O. P. No. 20627 of 1996, the decision will have a bearing on O. P. No. 202 of 1997.

(2.) THE petitioners submit that they have their own workers employed in their rice mills to do all works including the head load work. When they have such permanent employees they are not liable to employ the head load workers in the locality represented by respondents Nos. 3 to 6, even though they have registration and identity cards issued under the Act. But 29 head load workers unionised under respondents Nos. 3 to 6 maintained the view that they were doing the headload work under the petitioners since long that they cannot be replaced by any other person and that they have a right to continue to do the headload work available in the petitioners' mill As and when lorry loads of paddy are brought to the mills they had the right to unload it and as and when rice is taken out of the mills they have the right to load that rice into the lorry. They submit that there were several agreements between the rice mill owners and the unions concerning the terms of employment of the headload workers represented by them including the 29 workers who were doing the head load work under the petitioners and the other rice mill owners. The petitioners on the other hand submit that they have the right to choose their own workmen. The petitioners, therefore, approached for police protection in O. P. No. 20042 of 1995, which lead to exhibit P-l judgment. Without resolving the dispute between the petitioners and the unions police protection was directed to be given to the petitioners reserving the right of the union to raise a dispute before the appropriate labour authorities. Two among the unions went in appeal. In the appeal, the unions raised the relevance of exhibit R-5 (a) agreement dated January 1, 1993, produced in that original petition (exhibit P-16 in this case ). In exhibit P-2 judgment, it was observed as follows:

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the Division Bench directed the Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor, to take a decision regarding the dispute as to whether members of the appellants-unions are entitled to be engaged for loading and unloading operations in the rice mills run by the petitioner. The police protection was directed to be continued until the decision was taken. The first petitioner herein moved a CMP for clarification of exhibit P-2 judgment and it was clarified that instead of Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor, the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam, shall take decision as directed in exhibit P-2. In compliance with that direction, exhibit P-5 order was passed by the District Labour Officer, the first respondent. That was against the workmen represented by the unions, respondents Nos. 3 to 6. They filed appeal against exhibit P-5. That appeal was allowed by exhibit P-7 and the matter was remanded to the District Labour Officer. The petitioners challenged exhibit P-7 in O. P. No. 13127 of 1996. That original petition was dismissed by exhibit P-9 judgment. Consequently, in terms of exhibit P-7 remand order, the first respondent took up the matter for hearing. After considering the evidence tendered by either side and adverting to the contentions raised by them, the first respondent passed exhibit P-11 order upholding the rights of the workmen. It was directed that 29 headload workers represented by respondents Nos. 3 to 6 with identity card issued under the Act shall be given employment by the petitioners in terms of agreement dated March 30, 1990, and letter dated May 21, 1995. The former one is produced as exhibit P-15 in this case. The petitioners challenged exhibit P-11 again in O. P. No. 15284 of 1996. I disposed of the said original petition directing the petitioner to file an appeal against exhibit P-11 and that till the appellate order was passed, the arrangements existing shall continue and it was also directed that if the final order is in favour of the workers, the petitioners would be liable to recompense the workers by paying the wages they had lost due to denial of employment. Based on exhibit P-12, the petitioners submitted exhibit P-13 appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent conducted an enquiry in terms of Section 21 (7) of the Act and passed exhibit P-14. In exhibit P-14 the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the 29 workers represented by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are entitled to unloading work available in the petitioner's rice mill based on the agreements produced before the District Labour Officer. The petitioners thus challenge exhibit P-11 and exhibit P-14.