ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEADLOAD Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues involved in these matters being closely interlinked, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The Exthibits are referred to in the judgment as they appear in W.P.(C) No.25887 of 2019.

(2.) The Government of Kerala has established an agricultural urban wholesale market (the market) at Nettoor in Ernakulam District, during 1992. The market was exempted from the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (the Act) by virtue of a notification under the Kerala Loading and Unloading (Regulation of Wages and Restriction of Unlawful Practices) Act, 2002. As such, though the market is located in an area notified for implementation of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme,1983 (the Scheme), its functional operation was not extended to the market and the loading and unloading works in the establishments inside the market were being carried out by the workers engaged by the establishments themselves. The Kerala Loading and Unloading (Regulation of Wages and Restriction of Unlawful Practices) Act, 2002 was repealed in terms of the Kerala Headload Workers (Amendment) Act, 2008. When the benefit of exemption from the provisions of the Act enjoyed by the establishments inside the market was taken away by virtue of the repeal of the enactment, the association of the establishments inside the market approached this court in W.P.(C) No.18450 of 2015 for police protection for carrying out the works by engaging workers of their choice. The said writ petition was dismissed on 1.8.2019 in terms of Ext.P5 judgment holding that the establishments inside the market shall have to engage workers under the Scheme for their works.

(3.) The Scheme in the area within which the market is located is presently administered by the Ernakulam District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (the Board). W.P.(C) No.24177 of 2019 is a writ petition filed by the headload workers included in Pool No.10 by the committee administering the Scheme in the area. According to the petitioners therein, since the market is located within the boundaries prescribed by the committee for the workers included in Pool No. 10, they are entitled to carry out the work inside the market to the exclusion of all others. It was alleged by the petitioners in that case that they are not being permitted to carry out the work by the workers included by the committee in Pool No.9. The petitioners in that case are, therefore, seeking police protection to enable them to carry out the works in the establishments inside the market.