ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (AITUC) PUTHENCRUZ UNIT, PIN Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the obstruction caused to the members of pool No.38 in carrying out the loading and unloading work in a Beverages Corporation outlet. The petitioners submit that the Beverages Corporation outlet was situated near to the National Highway and pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same has been shifted to an interior place. However, even the present location is situated within the area of pool No.38. The party respondents, who are members of Pool Nos.42 and 43, oppose the members of pool No.38 being involved in the work. Physical obstruction is alleged and hence, police protection is sought for.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 7 and 8 submits that Ext.P2 is challenged before the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.9362/2018. After appearance of respondents, who are the petitioners herein, the matter has been adjourned 'after vacation' without any interim orders. Respondents 7 and 8 had approached the District Labour Officer, who had allowed the claim and directed that members of pool Nos.42 and 43 are to be participated in the work carried on in the Beverages Corporation's outlet. An appeal was filed by the petitioners in which Ext.P2 order was passed. The learned counsel for the party respondents submits that Ext.P2 is not an order passed in accordance with the provisions, especially when there is a reference to the Board by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and in the meanwhile, there is a participation directed of the members of pool Nos.38, 42 and 43. It is also submitted that the Union cannot file an appeal as has been held in 2004(2) KLT 601 [Chummattu Thozhilali Union v. Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board].

(3.) We first deal with Chummattu Thozhilali Union (supra), wherein on consolidation of two Pools, constituted under the Kerala Head load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, five persons in the closed down pool had obtained registration as Headload Workers. However the members of the Pool to which the others were included, in available vacancies objected to the participation of the newly inducted registered workers. The Convenor of the Committee hence passed an order directing that the amount collected by the Board, with respect to the work carried out by the Pool, were to be shared as wages amongst the Pool members, including the newly inducted five workers. The Union was in appeal under Paragraph 6E of the Scheme. The decision declares that under Paragraph 6E, only a person aggrieved by the rejection of application could file an appeal and the Union cannot maintain an appeal against the registration. The appeal provision, 6E specifically speaks of an appeal from sub-clauses (4), (5) and (5) respectively of Paragraphs 6A,6B and 6C which speaks of registration, (i) at the commencement of the Scheme, (ii) replenishment of workers, and (iii) dependant employment. No appeal was provided from a registration granted.