FRANCIS Vs. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Original Petitions have been referred to a Division Bench as an important question of law of general application is involved in these matters.

(2.) The petitioners in O.P.No. 11682/96 is conducting a saw mill and doing business in timber at Maradi Village in Muvattupuzha. According to the petitioner, he started the saw mill business in 1994 with nine permanent workers. They have been engaged for loading and unloading work in the saw mill. The fourth respondent is a trade union and according to the petitioner, the members of this trade union are obstructing the loading and unloading work of the petitioner. The members of the Union prevent the petitioners workers from doing loading and unloading work. The petitioner submitted a representation to the police authorities, but was of no avail. Therefore, petitioner prays that the respondents 1 to 3 may be directed to see that the work in the saw mill of the petitioner be allowed to be handled by the petitioners workers and the members of the fourth respondent - union be prevented from interfering with the loading and unloading work in the saw mill. Petitioners has sought for police protection.

(3.) In this Original Petition the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner does not have 9 permanent workers. All the loading and unloading work in the saw mill is being done by the members of the fourth respondent union who are 18 in number. The petitioner started the mill in 1994 and previously the mill was under the management of another person and the business was carried on in the name and style as M/s. Jaya Timbers. The members of the fourth respondent Union had . never obstructed the loading and unloading work. It is further contended that the petitioners mill is situated in an area to which the provision of the Scheme framed under S.13 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act is made applicable. The Scheme provides for pooling of headload workers. There are other establishments also in that area and loading and unloading work in these establishments is also being done by the members of the fourth respondent - Union. The members of the fourth respondent Union are issued with identity cards and the wages are also fixed depending on the cubic feet. When a dispute arose, petitioner was called for a conciliation conference. But he refused to attend the meeting.