Kerala High Court

Rds Project Limited vs The District Police Chief on 17 September, 2021

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943

                            WP(C) NO. 29004 OF 2020

PETITIONER:

               RDS PROJECT LIMITED,
               REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHIHAB THANGAL ROAD,
               PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036,
               REP. BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT (PROJECTS)
               COL. M.R.RAVEENDRAN NAIR (RTD.)

               BY ADVS.
               K.T.THOMAS
               SHRI.MATHEW B KURIAN


RESPONDENTS:

     1         THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,
               PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-8.

     2         THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION,
               POTHENCODE MURUKKUMPUZHA ROAD,
               NH 66, MANGALAPURAM, KERALA-695501.

     3         SRI.JAYAN,
               CONVENOR, INTUC, 16 MILE,
               THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695584.

     4         SRI.RAVINDRAN,
               CONVENOR, CITU, 16 MILE, THONNAKKAL P.O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695584.

     5         THE CHAIRMAN,
               KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
               SUB LABOUR OFFICE, BPS ROAD,
               ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-85.

     6         HLL INFRA TECH SERVICES LTD.,
               HLL BHAVAN, GOLDEN JUBILEE BLOCK,
               POOJAPPURA P.O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012,
               REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

               BY ADVS.
               GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               SRI.SAMPATH V. TOMS-R3,4
               SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM-R5
               SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
               SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
               KUM.T.S.ATHIRA-R6
 W.P(C)No.29004 of 2020

                                           2

  OTHER PRESENT:

               Sri E C Bineesh, GP



        THIS   WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)       HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON

  17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C)No.29004 of 2020

                                     3



                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021

The petitioner is stated to be a Company registered

under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and they

say that they are in the midst of a construction and its allied

activities like electrification, installation of fire fighting

systems, plumbing, site leveling etc., as per Ext.P1 Letter of

Acceptance of the 6th respondent and the subsequent

agreement between the parties for such purpose.

2. The petitioner says that even though the members

of 3rd and 4th respondents - Unions are being engaged, as and

when it becomes necessary, for the purpose of loading and

unloading of the construction articles, they are now causing

continuous obstruction, claiming that the petitioner or the 6 th

respondent cannot do any such activity using mechanized

means. They assert that this demand of the Unions and their

members is untenable because most of the articles used for W.P(C)No.29004 of 2020

the construction and its allied activities are heavy and

delicate, which will require to be handled only through

machines and skilled workers. Petitioner contends that, in

spite of this, when the members of the respondents - Unions

continued with their obstructionist and violent actions, they

were forced to approach the 2nd respondent - Station House

Officer through Ext.P3 seeking protection. They allege that,

however, no action was taken by the said Authority, thus

constraining them to have approached this Court through

writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri.K.T.Thomas - learned counsel for

the petitioner; Sri.Sampath.V.Toms - learned counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4; Sri.Thomas

Abraham - learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondent No.5; Smt.Athira.T.S - learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.6 and Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned

Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Sri.Sampath.V.Toms, the learned counsel for

respondents 3 and 4, argued that continued prosecution of W.P(C)No.29004 of 2020

this writ petition by the petitioner is an abuse of process,

because, pending this lis, a settlement had been entered into

by them, as also the 6th respondent, with his clients, leading

to Ext.R4(r), where under, various items of work to be

handled by his clients were enumerated and fixed. He

submitted that, therefore, as of now, there can be no

controversy and that petitioner cannot seek any further

orders from this Court.

5. Sri.Thomas Abraham; learned Standing Counsel

for respondent No.5, Board, confirmed that the area in

question is covered by a Scheme under the Kerala Head

Load Workers Act, 1978 and submitted that, therefore, only

the members of respondents 3 and 4 Unions can be

permitted to undertake loading and unloading activities. He

added that, in fact, petitioner is engaging them even now,

but that the controversy appears to be that they are using

mechanized means for loading and unloading certain

consignments and articles.

6. The learned Government Pleader, Sri.E.C.Bineesh, W.P(C)No.29004 of 2020

submitted that, in obedience to the interim order of this

Court dated 22/12/2020, Police is keeping a vigil in the area

in question and that members of respondents 3 and 4 have

not been allowed to take law into their own hands or to

commit any action, which will have the effect of breach of

law and order. He submitted that Police will continue to

keep such a vigil and to ensure that there is no breach of

peace in the area in future.

7. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is

rendered indubitable that the real controversy between the

petitioner on one hand and the members of respondents 3

and 4 Unions or the other, is with respect to the loading and

unloading of certain large and delicate consignments and

articles. While the petitioner asserts that these

consignments and articles can only be handled through

mechanized means; the members of respondents 3 and 4

Unions assert otherwise and say that they are capable of

handling it and that petitioner is obliged to allow them to do

so, on account of Ext.R4(r) Settlement. W.P(C)No.29004 of 2020

8. When I evaluate the rival submissions, it is

apodictic, it having been settled through a series of

judgments, that head load workers can only insist on work

which is within their competence and which can be handled

through human effort. In fact, the definition of the word

'head load worker' is so in the Head Load Workers Act itself.

Therefore, when consignments, incapable of being handled

manually or which are delicate, are to be loaded or unloaded

in the premises of the construction, I cannot find any reason

for the members of respondents 3 and 4 to cause any

obstruction. If they have a case that a particular

consignment or article can be handled by their members and

that petitioner is using mechanised methods only to deny

them legitimate employment, their remedy is to approach the

Competent Authority under Section 21 of the Kerala Head

Load Workers Act, but cannot take law into their own hands

or cause obstruction.

That said, I notice that it is virtually conceded that

the construction activities in the premises are now going on W.P(C)No.29004 of 2020

smoothly on account of the interim order of this Court and

that the only surviving apprehension for the respondents

Unions against it being continued is that, in the event they

want to raise a dispute with respect to a particular

consignment or article in future, they will be incapacitated

from doing so.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ

petition, confirming the interim order of this Court dated

22/12/2020; thus directing the 2nd respondent to ensure that

respondents 3 and 4 or their men are not allowed to take

law into their own hands in any event, and that law and

order is constantly maintained in the area without any

breach.

Needless to say, if 3rd and 4th respondents or their

men have any cause with respect to a particular consignment

or article, which the petitioner or the 6 th respondent

attempts to load or unload using mechanized means; or if

they are aggrieved with respect to the incorporation of

Exhibit R4(r), they will be at liberty to invoke their remedies W.P(C)No.29004 of 2020

under Section 21 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, and

my observations in this judgment will not fetter or trammel

them in any manner whatsoever.

To reiterate, the sum total of my observations

above is that, even if a dispute is to be raised by respondents

3 and 4 and their men with respect to any component of the

work; or as regards Exhibit R4(r), they shall not be allowed

to indulge in violence or to commit any acts contrary to law

and that they will have to invoke their legal remedies as per

the statutory scheme.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 21.9.2020 ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 27.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 12.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 21.11.2020. Exhibit R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 23.12.2020. Exhibit R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 31.12.2020. Exhibit R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 01.01.2021 Exhibit R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 3.01.2021. Exhibit R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 15.01.2021. Exhibit R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 17.01.2021. Exhibit R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 25.01.2021. Exhibit R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 31.01.2021. Exhibit R4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 03.02.2021. Exhibit R4(K) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD.09.02.2021 Exhibit R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 12.02.2021 Exhibit R4(M) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 21.12.2021. Exhibit R4(N) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 22.02.2021. Exhibit R4(O) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONVENED AT THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD 24.12.2020.

Exhibit R4(P) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE SUPERINTENDENT KERALA STATE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ATTINGAL, OFFICE TO THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEADLOAD, WORKERS WELFARE BOARD 01.01.2021

Exhibit R4(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE.23.01.2021 Exhibit R4 (R) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4, SHOWING THE REVISED LABOUR UNION RATES FOR UNLOADING WORK

// TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE