JUDGMENT K.J. Joseph, J. 1. When this case has come up for hearing on 20-12 1993, neither the counsel nor the petitioner was present. Therefore, Original Petition was dismissed for default. C. M. P. No. 874/94 is filled by the petitioner praying for restoration of the Original Petition bank to files and to set aside the order of dismissal for default. Copy of the said petition was served en the respondents. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The petition is not opposed. Hence the same is allowed. 2. The petitioner in this Original Petition is the Honorary Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, Trichur, a registered body to improve and foster the industry and commence in the Trichur Municipality. The chamber of Commerce has a membership of many people who are businessmen, traders and industrialist in Trichur. Some of the members of the Chambers of commerce are engaged in wholesale and retail trade of various commodities and also manufacturing and sale of various commercial and industrial products. In their business activities, the loading and unloading of various items of goods act become necessary and form part of their business. Foe carrying out the said business, they require the help of headload workers. It is the case of the petitioner association that they were having regular headload workers attached to their business. But with the introduction of Kerala Head-load Workers Act and the Scheme framed thereunder, according to the petitioner, at the instance of the convenor of the local area committee they have retrenched the service of permanent headload workers attached to their business in order to enable those workers to register their names under the Head-Load Workers Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. Thus the member of the association had agreed to take into consideration the larger interest of the headload workers who were attached to their business activities for a long number of years. 3. The Headload Workers Act, 1978 (Act 20 of 1980) was enacted by the State Legislature with the object to regulate the employment of headload workers in the State of Kerala and to make provisions for their welfare, for the settlement of disputes in respect of their employment of non employment and matters connected there with. 3. The Headload Workers Act, 1978 (Act 20 of 1980) was enacted by the State Legislature with the object to regulate the employment of headload workers in the State of Kerala and to make provisions for their welfare, for the settlement of disputes in respect of their employment of non employment and matters connected there with. Under S.14 of the said Act; the State Government as per a notification published in the gazette established the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board with Chairman and members, S.18 of the Act given power to the Government to appoint a committee for such area by way of a notification and with such name as may be specified in the said notification for the purpose of exercising the powers and performing the functions of the committee under the Act and the scheme in relation to that area. The committee so constituted shall be a body Corporal having perpetual succession and common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and may by that time, sue and be sued. The committee shall consist all such number of members not exceeding 15 nominated by the Government. The functions and duties of the committee is specifically stated in Sub-clause 8 of S.18 of the Act. Government also appointed officers for conciliation of the disputes that may article in connection with the employment or non employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of work of any Headload worker exists or apprehends in respect of a particular area and prescribe the area of its jurisdiction. 4. The main functions of the local committee is to pool the headload workers who are not employed under any employee, or contractor and to arrange and regulate employment to such headload workers and to pay. them wages and also to take disciplinary action against them whenever necessary. 5. S.13 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act provides for implementation of a scheme for the matters specified therein. The said scheme was published in the year 1983 and it has some into force in the area specified in the schedule attached to the scheme on 1-3-1984. As per the notification dated 8-3-1985, the scheme was made applicable to ward nos. 1 to 32 in the Trichur Municipal Town. The said scheme was published in the year 1983 and it has some into force in the area specified in the schedule attached to the scheme on 1-3-1984. As per the notification dated 8-3-1985, the scheme was made applicable to ward nos. 1 to 32 in the Trichur Municipal Town. According to the petitioner many members of the petitioner association are doing business mainly in the above 32 words of the Trichur Municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that member of the Chamber of Commerce bring various articles and goods to their shop from distant places in lorries and tempo vans. These goods are to be unloaded and their goods are to be loaded and for the entire loading and unloading activities, they have to depend entirely on the headload workers registered under the respondents. As contemplated under the Scheme, the entire wages payable to the headload workers are deposited with the 5th respondent in advance by the employees. Apart from that, 25% of the wages also is paid by the employers to meet the administrative expanses of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner association that in spite of request, sufficient headload workers were not made available for carrying out the leading and unloading activities in their business places, even though the headload workers in the local area have to be divided into various pools depending on the seed of the locality. As per the Rules framed under the Act, the pool and the workers aye under the direct control of the 5th respondent, the convenor, Kerala Headload Workers Local Committees, Trichur. It is the case of the petitioner that without any statutory provision or legal authority, the 5th respondent permitted the pool leaders to he elected from among the headload workers and the statutory functions required to be exercised by the 5th respondent were delegated to the pool leaders and the pool leaders invented and implemented a particular method of work known as "top system". 6. According to the petitioner, all the headload workers is a particular pool will elect one of them as their leader and he will not do any work. But he will fix a target amount and whenever a worker earns the target amount, he will be exempted from further work and declare as "top". Thereafter. he will not available for doing any work for the rest of the day. But he will fix a target amount and whenever a worker earns the target amount, he will be exempted from further work and declare as "top". Thereafter. he will not available for doing any work for the rest of the day. Even though he will sign in the register of the pool as if he worked, bat will not work. By introduction of this irregular and unwanted system, in most of the pools, sufficient number of workers were not available for carrying out the loading and unloading activities, especially in certain wards. It is the case of petitioner that the Headload Worker: Act does not provide for such a ''top system", but the same is implemented and enforced by the workers in that particular area. It is the case of the petitioner that they brought to the notice of the authorities including the respondents as per Ext.P1 resolution about the unauthorised and illegal practice that in being followed by the so-called pool leaders and area committee attached to the Trichur Municipality, but no action was taken by the concerned authorities. It is also the ease of the petitioner association that the respondents are not able to take appropriate action and control the headload workers in the locality. When the goods are being brought by lorries, the headload workers refused to do work and if they are prepared to do work, would demand 1 1/2 times higher wages that has been prescribed under the Act. They will also demand payment of higher amount by the employer directly to the workers ignoring the fast that the employers have already paid the charges to the convenor, area committee. They have specifically narrated the high-handed activities of the headload workers in the Trichur Municipality Town in Exts. P1, P3 and P5 representations addressed to the Hon'ble Minister for Law and the Chief Executive of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board and also the Chairman of the Welfare Fund Board. Trichur Local Committee. The demand of higher wages and refusal to send sufficient cumber of headload workers to carry out the loading and unloading activities were highlighted in the above representations. 7. Trichur Local Committee. The demand of higher wages and refusal to send sufficient cumber of headload workers to carry out the loading and unloading activities were highlighted in the above representations. 7. On receipt of these representations even though the Chairman of the Headload Workers Welfare Board had sent Ext P2 and P4 replies to the petitioner association, they did not take any effective steps to supply sufficient number of headload workers for doing the loading and unloading activities of the members of the petitioner association. They did not also take any effective steps preventing the headload workers from making any demand claiming more amount than the amount prescribed under the Headload Workers Scheme from the employers. In Exts. P2 and P4 replies, the Chairman of the Headload Workers Welfare Board-had practically accepted the grievances raised by the petitioner association regarding the "top system" and not providing sufficient number of workers for doing the loading and unloading activities as and when asked for by the employers. 8. The petitioner association, there after has taken up the matter to the Government as per Ext. P6 detailed representation stating the highhanded activities undertaken by some of the pools attached to the Trichur Municipal town area with special reference to pool 5B and requested the Government to issue necessary direction to redress the grievances of the employers. The grievances of the employers were highlighted by the news media and the petitioners have produced Exts. P8 and P9 paper publication to prove that the employers in Trichur Municipal area were put to great difficulties and financial loss by the sudden strike and other illegal activities of the headload workers in Trichur Municipal area. Ext. P6 representation followed by Ext. P10 detailed replantation addressed to the Chairman, Headload Workers Welfare Board wherein also, they have reiterated their grievances and sought immediate remedial measures for the various matters specified by them in their various representations. Bat the respondents did not take any further action in the matter and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take effective steps to stop the "top system" as it is against the statute and also to appoint its own officers to control various pools established as per the provisions of the Act. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to compel them not to allow the headload workers to demand more wages than the wages prescribed under S.9 of the Act and also to provide adequate and sufficient workers to an area of strike from the area where other registered headload workers are available with the respondents. They also prayed for consequential reliefs. 9. On behalf of respondent 2 and 3, a detailed counter affidavit has been filled in the case. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated the headload workers scheme prepared under S.13 of the Act of the Kerala Headload Workers Act was implemented in respect of Trichur Municipal area and before formulation of the scheme, objections were called for though notification and the petitioner did not object to the scheme and there fore, the scheme had become final and the same scheme is made applicable to the area in question. Pursuant to the scheme, the registration of workers and enrollment in the committee were done under the provision of the Kerala Headload workers (Regulations Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 on the basis of the applications furnished by each individual worker. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that for the purpose of rendering the services of the headload workers to the employers effectively, the pool leaders were being determined by the committee as per the provisions of the scheme as per S.13(1) of the Act. It is further stated in the countee affidavit that the pool leaders so determined from among the workers themselves on rotation basis and they are making effective arrangements for providing service of the workers present on each day to the registered employers without any delay. They have also stated in the counter affidavit that no headload workers shall be employed or paid wages except in accordance with the provisions to the Scheme as contemplated in Para.11 of the Scheme and it is the duty of the area committee posting the headload workers as and when the employers require the service of the headload workers, It is the case of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the duty assigned to the pool leaders by the committee are only to mark the attendance, make available the workers, to the employers as and when their services Me required, etc. and it is the case of the respondent that under S.18of the Act, the area committee has authority and jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the workers who are acting against the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. In respect of the statements in the Original Petition that the workers demand 1 1/2 times the prescribed wages under. S.9 of the Act, the counter affidavit states that strict instructions also have been issued by the authorities to the workers not to deemed higher wages or wages than what is notified, from the employees and they have pointed out instances where the excess amount"' received by the workers from the employers were ordered to be refunded to the employer by recovering the same from the workers. They have also stated that the committee had ordered payment of damages to one of the employer for the damage incurred by the said employer by the carelessness in loading and unloading of his articles. 10. Even though, Ext. P3 representation submitted by the petitioner, Chamber of Commerce, to the Kerala State Subordinate Legislation Committee, according to the counter affidavit, the committee has not taken any decision in the matter. The counter affidavit further admits that against the decision taken by the Board, some of the works started lightening strike and the committee took appropriate action and resumed normal work immediately. In another occasion, when the workers went en strike in respect of payment of festival advance, the respondents gave en ultimatum to the workers to resume work on 28-8-1989 and few workers in defiance of the ultimatum acted against the decision and they were punished as per the provision of the Scheme. Therefor according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief that they asked for in this Original Petition. 11. I heard the leanest counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 at great length. As can be seen from Exts. P2 and P4 communication sent by the Chairman of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board to the petitioner association, the Board was fully aware of the activities of the headload workers in Trichur area and Chairman had assured appropriate timely action in respect of the complaints made by the Chamber of Commerce in Exts. As can be seen from Exts. P2 and P4 communication sent by the Chairman of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board to the petitioner association, the Board was fully aware of the activities of the headload workers in Trichur area and Chairman had assured appropriate timely action in respect of the complaints made by the Chamber of Commerce in Exts. P1 and P3 representations wherein they have specifically alleged violation of the terms and provisions in the scheme and the difficulties caused to the employers by the workers in the area in the matter of loading and unloading their articles during the course of their trade and business. In none of the communications sent by the Chairman to the petitioner, Chamber of Commerce, it is stated that the allegations raised by the Chamber of Commerce, are baseless and made with any ulterior motive. On the other hand, the Chairman has even requested the cooperation of the petitioner, Chamber of commerce and its members to settle the problems.He has also assured that appropriate action would be taken in regard to the grievances voiced by the Chamber of Commerce in their various representation addressed to Chairman, area committee and the Government. Therefore, cannot be said that grievances raised by the petitioner, Chamber of Commerce for and on behalf of its members in Exts P1, P3, P5 and P7 representations/appeals did not attract the immediate attention of the Board and its officers. The grievances by the petitioner, Chamber of Commerce, had been reported in important newspapers which is evident from Ext P8 and P9 reports. In the absence of any specific dental of the allegations raised of the petitioner, the Chamber of Commerce, it cannot be said that the respondents have no duty to consider their representations and redress the grievances voiced by the Chamber of Commerce. For an effective implementation of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder, the Board and its Executive Officers have to take immediate and effective steps. If the provisions of the Act and the Scheme are not be implemented effectively it will cause serious consequences and repercussions to the headload workers who are the beneficiaries under the Act and the Scheme. 12. It is also pertinent to note that in respect of the allegations stated by the petitioner in Ext. If the provisions of the Act and the Scheme are not be implemented effectively it will cause serious consequences and repercussions to the headload workers who are the beneficiaries under the Act and the Scheme. 12. It is also pertinent to note that in respect of the allegations stated by the petitioner in Ext. P1 in and is Para.8 of the Original Petition, there it no denial of the statements contained in respect of the allegations mentioned in Para.8 of the Original Petition. In the above paragraph, petitioner has stated as follows; '8. All the headload workers in a particular pool will elect one of them as leader. He will not do any work. But the will fix a particular amount as target amount, whichever headload worker works for that amount will be exempted from work and declared as top. If a particular headload worker can work and reach that target amount he will be exempted from actual work during the rest of the days. He will sign in the register of the pool as if he worked but will not work. In a pool having a strength of 50 people there will be only 20 or 25 to work towards the close of the week days. In a pool where 50 persons are allotted by the forth and 4th respondent based on the need there are only 20 to work and other classified as top will not work, but sign the register. These who need the headload workers will not get workers in time. The pool leaders will demand more money than the prescribed wages and also extra payments for providing headload workers. Even though there are headload Workers in the register they will not work and the traders will not be in a position to gat the work done also through other workers, The headload workers Act does not provide for such a top system but the same is implemented by the workers. Even though the petitioner brought this to the notice of the respondents, they did not do anything to prevent this illegal practice. Though a letter dated 23-6-1988 petitioner informed the second respondent about the wild cat strike and the implementation of top system by the workers. A copy of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P1. Even though the petitioner brought this to the notice of the respondents, they did not do anything to prevent this illegal practice. Though a letter dated 23-6-1988 petitioner informed the second respondent about the wild cat strike and the implementation of top system by the workers. A copy of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P1. It is stated by the petitioner that for no fault of the traders they are made the victims. On account of some dispute or misunderstanding between the headload workers and the respondent strike is commenced by the headload workers. The respondents are not able to take appropriate action and control the headload workers. Goods brought by the merchants through lorries from distant places cannot be unleaded due to sudden strike. Secondly, even during the continuance of work suddenly strike is commenced on trivial grounds. Heavy loss and damage is sustained by the merchants. The respondents do not compensate the loss sustained by the petitioner due to the strike by their own registered headload workers. Petitioner requested the respondents to implement the prescribed wages also for the work done by the headload workers." 13. The specific allegation and statements made in Para.8 of the original Petition had not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 was not able to satisfy me that the system adapted by the pool leaders made mention in Para.8 is contemplated either under the scheme of under any other provisions of the Act. There is no justification for the pool leaders not to do any work and fix any particular amount as target and decree those workers who achieved the target as top. There is also absolutely no justification for those workers who achieved the target are not doing any work for rest of the day. Neither under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act nor in the Rules framed there under or the scheme framed under S.13 of the Act contemplates such such a top system and fixing any target for any worker and after achieving the said target declaring him as 'top'. Such a system is not conclusive for the cordial relation ship between the employer and employee and unheard of in any other part of the State. Such a system is not conclusive for the cordial relation ship between the employer and employee and unheard of in any other part of the State. To crown above all these events, headload workers who were declared as 'top' need not do any further work, but to remain as 'top' for the rest of the day thereby denying the legitimate right of the employer to get the work done by the head lead workers attached to the area at least for that day. The Act and the scheme did not even visualise such a contingency. What action did the respondents take against such an illegal system is not specifically stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit. There is absolutely no legal basis for following such a system to continue in any part of the State, where the Headload Workers Scheme is made applicable by the State Government. 14. Under the provisions of the scheme, the employer is entitled to get sufficient number of workers for carrying out loading and un-loading activities, The system adopted and made mentioned in Para.8 of the Original Petition run contrary to the provisions of the scheme and the Act itself. Those workers whose names had been registered under the Act and allotted by the area committee to any particular area they are legally bound to do the work of loading and unloading as and when required by the employer. Those workers who achieved the target and not doing any work for the rest of the day including the pool leaders are acting against the provisions of the scheme. The respondents are bound to take appropriate action against such activities of the pool leader and the workers under the provisions of the scheme inducing disciplinary action order S.18 of the Headload Workers Act. It is a valuable right that is conferred on the employers to employ the headload workers as and when required and it is the statutory duty of the area committee to provide sufficient number of workers to the employers as and when they make the demand. There is absolutely no justification for following the system made mentioned in Para.8 of the Original Petition which is not even controverted in the counter affidavit. There is absolutely no justification for following the system made mentioned in Para.8 of the Original Petition which is not even controverted in the counter affidavit. Therefore, the respondents are legally bound to take appropriate and immediate action to stop the illegal system made mention in Para.8 of the Original Petition and there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 5 to that effort. 15. In the light of the statements contained in the counter affidavit and after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both sides, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to issue a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate and urgent and effective steps to step the unauthorised system made mention as "top system'' prevailing in the Trichur Municipal town and I further direst the 5th respondent convener, Kerala Headload Workers Local committee, Trichur to make available sufficient headload workers for the loading and unloading activities of the members of the petitioner, Chamber of Commerce, immediately on getting a demand for such employment from the employee coming under his area. I also direct the respondent to take effective steps preventing the headload workers whose names have been registered with the 3th respondent from making any demand for more wages than prescribed under S.9 of the Headload Workers Act and further to further urgent and speedy action against the erring headload workers immediately on receipt of any complaint from the members of the petitioner, Chamber of Commence, in respect of loading and unloading work under taken by them in the area. Original Petition is allowed with the above directions. There will be no order as to costs.