Chumattu Thozhilali Congress v. State of Kerala — 1998 DIGILAW 61 (KER)

Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. Petitioners in this Original Petition are Chumattu Thozhilali Congress (I.N.T.U.C.), Palakkad and Railway Goods Transport & General Workers Union (I.N.T.U.C. (I), Olavakkod. Original Petition is filed challenging the order of the District Labour Officer, Palakkad, Ext. P3 and the order of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam, Ext. P8 under the Headload Workers Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 2. Petitioners are registered trade unions functioning in the sector of headload workers in Palakkad District. First petitioner union has basic units at various places including the Railway Goods Stations, whereas the second petitioner union is functioning at the Railway Goods Station exclusively. Fifth respondent is the Palakkad Taluk Headload and General Workers Union (C.I.T.U.), while the sixth respondent is the Palakkad Jilla Headload and General Workers Federation (S.T.U.). 3. In Palakkad, there are two Rail way Stations; one is called Town Railway Station while the other is called Junction Railway Station. Town Railway Station is nearly a century old while the Junction Railway Station is comparatively new. Town Railway Station was the goods station yard for a long number of years. But by the formation of the Junction Railway Station and the improvement effected thereon, business in goods is more in the Junction Railway Station than in the Town Railway. Station. 4. According to the petitioners, there are 50 headload workers having registration with the Town Railway Goods Station while there are 24 registered headload workers in the Junction Railway Goods Station. As it is known, with the promulgation of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978, it has become compulsory for the headload workers to register under the Act. The scheme framed under the Act, viz., the Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 has been extended to the areas covered under the Municipality of Palakkad from 1st February, 1986. After coming into force of the Scheme, a Committee was constituted under S.18 of the Act. This Committee is to exercise the powers and functions under the Scheme. Under Clause 19 of the Scheme, the Committee has to determine the number of headload workers for an area and for this purpose, the Committee has got power to increase or decrease the number in their register. This Committee is to exercise the powers and functions under the Scheme. Under Clause 19 of the Scheme, the Committee has to determine the number of headload workers for an area and for this purpose, the Committee has got power to increase or decrease the number in their register. Under Clause 20 of the Scheme, the Chairman has to make arrangements to pool the registered workers into as many groups as are needed and locate these groups at locations decided by him. The Committee form pools. The Town Railway Goods Station was included in pool No. 46 while the Junction Railway Good Station was included in pool No. 45. Pool No. 46 had a total membership of 50 while pool No. 45 had a total membership of 24. 5. As stated earlier, the work in the Town Railway Goods Station became less and less while the work in the Junction Railway Goods Station increased considerably. It is also stated that the Railways are taking decision to stop the goods yard at Town Railway Station. Thus, the headload workers in the Town Railway Station apprehended that the day will come when there will be no work for Town Railway Station. Hence, they approached the District Labour Officer for amalgamation of these two pools allowing all the 74 headload workers to work jointly in both the Stations. A petition was filed before the District Labour Officer, which is produced as Ext. P1. 6. The fifth respondent union objected to the above proposal. Therefore, the District Labour Officer initiated conciliation proceedings, under S.21 of the Act and conveyed a meeting of all concerned unions. Thereafter meetings were held on various dates. Notices for the meetings are produced as Ext. P2 series. Under S.21(4) of the Act, on the failure of the conciliation regarding the dispute, the District Labour Officer is authorized to take a decision thereof. Hence, the District Labour Officer conducted an enquiry and finally passed Ext. P3 order. In Ext. P3 order, the District Labour Officer found that it was necessary to amalgamate both the pools. A contention was raided before the third respondent that additional 30 workers were working in the Junction Railway Station and they should also be provided with work when both these pools are clubbed together. A list of 30 names was furnished. The third respondent included them as IS. Nos. 75 to 104 in Ext. P3. A contention was raided before the third respondent that additional 30 workers were working in the Junction Railway Station and they should also be provided with work when both these pools are clubbed together. A list of 30 names was furnished. The third respondent included them as IS. Nos. 75 to 104 in Ext. P3. He directed the Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad to issue identity cards to the above persons. Petitioners were aggrieved by the directions given by the District Labour Officer to issue identity cards to 30 persons. Hence, they filed appeals before the second respondent, under S.21 of the Act. Appeals were disposed of by Ext. P8 order. In this connection, it is well to remember that no appeal was filed against the order of the District Labour Officer to amalgamate the two pools. Appeals were filed only against the direction to admit the additional 30 persons. In Ext. P8, the first finding is regarding the pooling together or the merger of the two pools. He has approved the finding of the District Labour Officer that the two pools should be merged. But he has found fault with the District Labour Officer in not stating the guidelines on the basis of which the work has to be given to the workers. Hence, he directed the District Labour Officer to take a decision on this . matter within four months. Regarding the induction of the additional 30 members, he was of the view that there has not been proper identification. Hence, the entire matter was remanded back to the District Labour Officer. It is challenging Exts. P3 and P8 that the present Original Petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the question on issue was whether pool 45 and pool 46 can be merged together. Question whether the additional 30 members, who are allowed to work in the Junction Railway Station, are also to be included in the pool was not a matter for consideration. Hence, counsel submitted that both the original authority and the appellate authority went wrong in deciding the issue regarding the employment of additional 30 members. He further submitted that even accepting that the second contention can be gone into both the authorities were wrong in considering the case of the additional 30 members. Hence, counsel submitted that both the original authority and the appellate authority went wrong in deciding the issue regarding the employment of additional 30 members. He further submitted that even accepting that the second contention can be gone into both the authorities were wrong in considering the case of the additional 30 members. He submitted that the section insists that only persons, who have registered and who have been issued identity cards can be allowed to work in the area where the scheme is applied. Further he submitted that under Clause 19 of the Scheme it is for the Committee to determine the number of workers needed for an area. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that even the merger of two pools could not have been the subject matter of discussion or a decision under S.21 of the Act. It was further submitted that the engagement of additional 30 members directly arises when the issue of the merger of two pools is taken into consideration and that when the matter has been remanded, petitioners were not aggrieved by the same. 8. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. In Ext. P3, the District Labour Officer has decided that both the pools should be merged. That finding has become final. Hence it has to be assumed that both the pools have to be merged. I am referring to this, because learned counsel for the respondents took the contention that the question may not come within the purview of 'dispute'. But the respondents cannot take the contention because they have not challenged the orders Ext. P3 or Ext. P8, which have taken the view that there should be merger of two pools. According to me, this question can be resolved under S.21 of the Act. 'Dispute' is defined under S.2(h) of the Act as follows: "dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and headload workers or between headload workers and headload workers, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of employment, of any headload workers". Question is whether certain headload workers in the Junction Railway Station can be exclusively allowed to work in that area in the face of the fact that the business in the Junction Railway Station is more than in the Town Railway Station. Question is whether certain headload workers in the Junction Railway Station can be exclusively allowed to work in that area in the face of the fact that the business in the Junction Railway Station is more than in the Town Railway Station. This is certainly a dispute and hence according to me, there is nothing wrong in referring the issue for conciliation. 9. Next question is whether the induction of additional 30 members after the pools are merged is a question for consideration or the question that arises for consideration when considering the dispute. According to me, this does not arise in the present proceedings. Grievance of the petitioners was that there are 50 workers in the Town Railway Goods Station where as there are only 24 workers in the Junction Railway Goods Station. Work in the Junction Railway Station is more and the work in the Town Railway Station is less. The question of merger was posed in order to give sufficient engagement to the workers in the Town Railway Station. Thus, question for issue was whether both the pools can be merged in order to avoid stoppage of work for the workers in the Town Railway Station. Both the authorities found that work in the Town Railway Station has gone down. Hence, it was necessary to merge both the pools. For considering this, the authorities took into account the number of registered workers. Question of unregistered workers does not come into the picture. Hence, they have no matter of right to get the work in the presence of the registered workers. Hence, the question of induction of additional 30 members does not directly arise for consideration. Hence, I am of the view that both the authorities were wrong in considering the question of induction of additional 30 members. 10. Even accepting for argument sake, according to me, the question has not been properly dealt with by the authorities, and that matter has been dealt with by the Committee and the Assistant Labour Officer. According to Clause 19 of the Scheme, the Committee has to determine the number of headload workers needed for the area and Clause 20 of the Scheme says that the Chairman shall make necessary arrangements to pool the registered workers into as many groups as are needed and locate these groups allocations decided by him. According to Clause 19 of the Scheme, the Committee has to determine the number of headload workers needed for the area and Clause 20 of the Scheme says that the Chairman shall make necessary arrangements to pool the registered workers into as many groups as are needed and locate these groups allocations decided by him. Thus, it is for the Committee and Chairman to decide how many members are necessary in a pool. Now admittedly as per the order of the authorities, after the merger, there are 74 members. It is for the Committee to decide whether more members are necessary. 11. The next question is as to how registration is to be made. Clause 6 of the Scheme says that no headload worker who is not a registered headload worker shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies after a period of 107 days from the date of commencement of the Scheme. The Scheme came into effect in Palakkad Municipal area on 1st day of February, 1986. Thus, after 107 days from 1st February, 1986 no unregistered headload worker shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies. Clause 6(2) of the Scheme says that within fifteen days from the commencement of the Scheme, every headload worker who is not permanently employed by an employer shall submit his application for registration. The Assistant Labour Officer has to pass order on this application for registration, after making due enquiry. Thus, the power to register the workers is with the Assistant Labour Officer. That is not to be considered by the District Labour Officer in a proceeding under S.21 of the Act. Hence, according to me, both the authorities exceeded their power in directing the registration of additional 30 members. 12. In the above view of the matter, I dispose of the Original Petition as follows: (1) The order of the District Labour Officer and the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner holding that i t is necessary to merge the two pools, viz., pool 45 and pool 46 is upheld. (2) So far as the arrangement of work for 74 members in the merged pool is concerned, this has to be done by the Chairman of the Committee constituted under S.18 of the Act. There will be a direction to the Chairman of the Committee to that effect. (2) So far as the arrangement of work for 74 members in the merged pool is concerned, this has to be done by the Chairman of the Committee constituted under S.18 of the Act. There will be a direction to the Chairman of the Committee to that effect. (3) So far as the case of additional 30 headload workers in the Junction Railway Station is concerned, I set aside the direction given in Ext. P8 order with respect to them. The Committee constituted under S.18 of the Act will consider the question whether any additional workers are necessary after the merger of the two pools. In case mere is necessity of any additional headload workers, the Committee can induct members, if they are registered under the Act, after complying with the formalities. (4) Any person, who intends to be a member of the merged pool, can make application for registration before the Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad. He may. After necessary enquiries, give registration and identity cards after ascertaining the opinion of the Committee whether any additional workers are necessary. (5) Till orders are passed by the Committee and the Assistant Labour Officer, the work in both the Railway Goods Stations is to be conducted with 74 registered headload workers already existing as members in the merged pool.