Kerala High Court
N Kochukuttan Pillai vs Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board on 14 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39836 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
N. KOCHUKUTTAN PILLAI
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, ILLICKAL HOUSE, MULAVUKAD P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 504.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY
SHRI.S.K.HARISH
SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA
SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRM ROAD,
ERNAKULAM - 682 017.
2 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD
ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, POOKKARANMUKKU, T.D ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3 THE CONVENOR
KERALA HAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM LOCAL
COMMITTEE, POOKKARAMUKKU, T.D ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682
031.
4 POOL LEADER
POOL NO.1, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE BOARD,
ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI - 31.
W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015
2
BY ADVS.
SRI.KOSHY GEORGE,
SHRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS
WELFARE BOARD - KHWWB
SHRI.V.P.PRASAD - R4
SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015
3
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has sought the following reliefs in this writ petition:-
"a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-3,
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to disburse wages to the petitioner as received by other workers of Pool No.1,
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order allowing the claim raised by the petitioner in Exhibit P-2, and
d) to issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Petitioner was a head load worker. He was working as a registered worker under the Kerala Head Load Workers W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 4 Welfare Board, Ernakulam Local Committee since 1985. He approached this Court earlier in several writ petitions. According to the petitioner, he was in the beginning member of a Trade Union and later he was expelled from the Union. Because of the hostility of the Union, petitioner was isolated in work and he alleges that due wages were not paid to him. Petitioner also alleged that wage cards were tampered by the pool leader and other workers of the pool to deny him his due share of wages. Petitioner also sought police protection in one of the writ petitions.
3. This Court, by Ext.P1 judgment, disposed of three writ petitions filed by the petitioner by a common judgment dated 08.01.2015. Operative portion of Ext.P1 judgment is extracted hereunder:
"a) Ext.P2 in WP(C) No.24070/2003 is hereby quashed;
b) respondents 1 and 2 in WP(C) No.29583/2007 are directed to consider and take appropriate action on Exts.P3 and P8 in the said writ petition after affording the petitioner and the affected parties an opportunity of being heard within a period of three months from the date W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 5 of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and
c) Ext.P4 in WP(C)No.31308/2008 is quashed as it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It shall be open to the 2nd respondent in the said writ petition to pass fresh orders in the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; and
d) as the petitioner has averred that he is ready to work and cooperate with other workers at any point of time, the respondent Board is directed to take disciplinary action against the workers, who are not ready to carry out the work along with the petitioner. It is hereby made clear that the petitioner shall have freedom to work in any establishment with Pool No.1 and he can collect work cards from the employer and submit the same in the Office of Ernakulam Local Committee of the respondent Board."
4. As directed by this Court, the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board considered the grievance of the petitioner, projected in Ext.P2 representation. The Board extensively examined all contentions raised in Ext.P2. Documents produced by the petitioner along with the representation were also examined by the Board in detail. Board finally rejected all W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 6 contentions of the petitioner and issued Ext.P3 order dated 03.08.2015. Petitioner thereafter, approached this Court in the above writ petition seeking the above-mentioned reliefs.
Respondents 1 & 2 and 4 have filed separate counter affidavits.
5. I have heard Sri.T.C.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board and Sri.V.P.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the story of the petitioner is of a head load worker, who, on account of vengeance of a Union, had to suffer a lot and was denied his due wages, and also pension and other benefits. The learned counsel referred to various documents which were produced along with Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner to the Board. Learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to several wage slips wherein the dates are seen corrected. The learned counsel submitted that the Union resorted to glaring manipulations to deny due wages to the petitioner. The learned counsel referred to relevant W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 7 paragraphs of Ext.P3 and pointed out that the manipulations were virtually recognised by the Board also. The learned counsel also pointed out that the action taken by the Board by allocating a separate pool number, only for the petitioner, was found improper by this Court and the said decision was set aside. He also pointed out that the other head load workers of the same pool got several benefits by way of higher wages and consequently, higher pension also. Learned counsel further contended that, the petitioner was a victim of hostile discrimination and the Board even after considering the matter in compliance with the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment adhered to its earlier stand and denied all benefits to the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Board is highly arbitrary, unjust and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the wages denied to the petitioner by not treating him as a head load worker under Pool No.1 are liable to be disbursed to the petitioner. He also submitted that the pension of the petitioner is also to be enhanced, as he ought to have been treated as a member of Pool No.1.
W.P.(C).No.39836 of 20158
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Welfare Board, to the contrary, submitted that the petitioner was granted all eligible benefits by the Board and whenever the petitioner pointed out any genuine grievance, the Board never hesitated to intervene and support the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel, referring to the averments in the counter affidavit, pointed out that the petitioner had actually received a much higher amount than his contribution by putting in head load work. He further submitted that, in fact the petitioner enjoyed the fruits of the labour put in by other head load workers and earned a disproportionately higher income. The learned counsel pointed out that the said aspect was considered in detail by the Board in Ext.P3 proceedings and found that no financial loss was actually caused to the petitioner. Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had retired even before passing of Ext.P1 judgment and therefore, many of the directions issued in Ext.P1 were not germane even at the time when the judgment was passed. The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the Board is not retaining any wages and all amounts are being disbursed to the head load workers. Therefore, the Board W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 9 has no money in reserve to satisfy the claim of the petitioner that he shall be provided the deficiency of due wages claimed by him. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the records pertaining to the relevant period are now not available due to long lapse of time. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the responsibility of the Board is to retain the records only for a period of ten years and therefore, even if a re-examination of the whole issue is directed to be undertaken by the Board, the same will be futile as the Board has no records pertaining to the relevant period. The learned Standing Counsel concluded by submitting that all that was actually due to the petitioner and much more was provided to him and therefore, no relief is liable to be granted in this writ petition.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent supported the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel. Further, he submitted that the petitioner was not co-operating with any other head load workers of the Pool while he was working during the relevant period. He submitted that the petitioner was in the habit of working only till noon and the major works for head load workers were available in the market W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 10 area in the evenings and also during nights. Petitioner was never prepared to work in the late hours of any day. However, all other head load workers of Pool No.1 were prepared to work overtime and the petitioner for a considerable period, enjoyed the fruits of their labour also. The learned counsel submitted that it was on the complaints of other head load workers that Pool No.1A was created to include them. He submitted that the said decision was necessary to protect the interest of the other head load workers. The learned counsel submitted that the attempt of the petitioner is to raise claims which are totally untenable and found so by the Board in Ext.P3 proceedings. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed without granting any reliefs to the petitioner.
9. I have considered the rival contentions. Petitioner had raised several grievances in Ext.P2 representation and produced a bunch of documents. This Court, in the earlier round of litigation, by Ext.P1 judgment directed the Board to consider the grievances of the petitioner. Board thereafter, provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner was provided ample opportunity to make his submissions. It is also to be noted W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 11 that the counsel for the petitioner was also heard by the Board. Board thereafter elaborately considered each and every aspect pointed out in Ext.P2 representation and recorded its conclusions. Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out several aspects which were clear indications of manipulations in the records. The learned counsel is correct in his submission that such manipulations were noted by the Board and the Board virtually agreed with the contentions of the petitioner in that regard. Board also recommended for action against those who were responsible for such manipulations.
10. However, the contention of the petitioner that he did not receive his due wages on account of such manipulations was not found correct by the Board. Board has concluded that the petitioner had received wages disproportionate to his contributions and no financial loss was caused to the petitioner. I must note that in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not expected to act like an appellate authority. Therefore, re-appreciation of the materials which were available before the Board to draw different conclusions and to substitute the findings of the Board with the W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 12 inferences drawn by the Court are not permissible. Only if grave and apparent errors are noticed, there is scope for interference in judicial review in a case of this nature. In the case at hand, with regard to most of the aspects, I do not find any such glaring mistakes committed by the Board.
11. I do not propose to undertake a detailed consideration of the factual aspects related to the allegation of the petitioner that he was not paid his due wages, for the reason that even if the said aspect is examined in detail and directions are issued, the same would be a futile exercise. There is considerable merit in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Board that the Board is not retaining any amounts due to the head load workers and therefore, even if a direction is issued, the same cannot be complied with, in the matter of any deficiency of wages as claimed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, any writ issued on the basis of the relief sought by the petitioner for disbursing wages will be a futile writ. It is trite law that the Court shall not issue futile writs. Hence, I am of the considered view that the said aspect need not be examined by this Court at this distant point of time for the above said reasons. W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 13
12. Regarding most of the other issues raised in Ext.P2, in my opinion, detailed examination is not required since the petitioner retired long ago.
13. However, I note that this Court in Ext.P1 had granted a declaration that the petitioner shall have freedom to work in any establishment with Pool No.1 and he can collect work cards from the employer and submit the same in the office of the Ernakulam Local Committee of the respondent - Board. In other words, the claim of the petitioner to treat him as a worker of Pool No.1 was accepted by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. Therefore, in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had recognised the right of the petitioner to work in any establishment with Pool No.1. The said declaration and direction became final long ago. Hence, I find it appropriate to hold that the petitioner shall be entitled for all pensionary benefits at par with other head load workers of Pool No.1 who retired while working in Pool No.1.
14. In view of the above discussion, the Board shall revise the pension of the petitioner in case he is drawing a lesser amount of pension compared to other retired co-workers of Pool W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 14 No. 1 and make it at par with them. This shall be done by the Board within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE rp W.P.(C).No.39836 of 2015 15 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39836/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 08.1.2015 IN WPC NOS. 24070/2003, 29583/2007 AND 31308/2008.
EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDNET ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E2-5969/2007 DATED 3.8.2015. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP ( C ) NO.14180/09 DATED 23.05.2009.
EXHIBIT R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF POOL NO.1 AGAINST THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY LEADER OF POOL NO.1 DATED 25.05.2012.
EXHIBIT R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.08.2008.