THOMAS K D Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions are filed against the common judgment in W.A. Nos. 285 / 97 and 289/97. The appellants are the review petitioners. The appellants are conducting Rice Mills. Their case was that Headload workers who belonged to respondents 3 to 6, were obstructing their work and they wanted police protection. When they approached this Court earlier for police protection, this Court granted police protection subject to the right of the Union to take the dispute before the District Labour Officer, Perumbavoor under the Headload Workers Act. The original authority as well as the appellate authority found that the appellants had engaged 29 headload workers belonging to the union of the respondents and the authorities directed that they should be engaged for the purpose of unloading by the appellants. Challenging the orders of the statutory authorities, the appellants filed Original Petitions. The decisions of the statutory authorities were confirmed by the learned single Judge. Challenging that judgment, these Writ Appeals were filed. The Writ Appeals were dismissed by the common judgment dated 16.12.87. In the W.A. the Division Bench after considering the order of the statutory authorities confirmed the findings of the authorities that the appellants did not engage any workmen for the purpose of unloading. It also agreed with the findings that the 29 workers of the respondents unions are engaged for unloading by the appellants. This was on the basis of Exts. P15 and P16. The appellants contended before the Division Bench that the alleged workmen had no right under the Headload Workers Act and hence the appellants did not have any obligation to engage them. This is on the basis that the scheme under the Headload Workers Act had not been extended to the area where the Mills are situated. This aspect was considered in Para.6 of the judgment in the appeal. The Bench referred to S.21(7) and held that their engagement had to be continued until they were terminated in accordance with law. In the judgment also we directed the disbursement of Rs. 2 lakhs, which was deposited with the Joint Labour Commissioner towards wages for .29 workmen. It is the above judgment that is sought to be reviewed. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that he urged the contentions before the Division Bench that the workmen concerned were not employed by the appellants. At best it can be stated that they were only engaged. There was no contract of service but only contract for service. He also submitted that there are many decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, which distinguished the 'persons engaged' and the 'persons employed'. His argument was that the headload workers who are now directed by the Court to be engaged by the appellants cannot be said to be in the service of the appellants. These headload workers are working not only for the appellants but for other Rice Mill Owners also. Hence the appellants cannot be compelled to employ them. Further he submits that there is no employee - employer relationship between the appellants and the alleged workmen. Before we discuss further, we wish to state that there is a mistake in the judgment regarding the total amount in deposit. Total amount of deposit is Rs. 3.07 lakhs. So also some workers have filed C.M.P. No. 2956/97 stating that they are giving up their claims against the appellants. This was omitted to record earlier. According to us, the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs mentioned in the judgment is not correct. It is corrected as Rs. 3.07 lakhs. So also C.M.P. No. 2437/97 is allowed recording that the petitioners in the CMP have given up their claims against the appellants.

(2.) But in this case, we are not concerned with such position. Learned counsel contended that the use of the word 'employment' in the judgment is not correct. It may not be correct in the strict sense. But what the respondents contend is that they are headload workers and they had been engaged by the appellants. "Headload worker" defined under S.2(m) of the Headload Workers Act is as follows:

(3.) In the above view of the matter, we do not find anything wrong in our judgment by which the orders of the statutory authorities are upheld. The contention regarding the life of Exts. P15 and P16 was considered by us in the judgment and hence it is not necessary to consider the same.