Kerala High Court
Kerala Purse-Seine Boat Owners ... vs Chairman on 12 June, 2024
1
W.P.(C) No.33533 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 33533 OF 2011
PETITIONER:
KERALA PURSE-SEINE BOAT OWNERS
ASSOCIATON, REGISTRATION NO.ER 1069/11, XV/1497,
BEACH ROAD, KOCHI-682002, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, K.S.ABDUL GAFOOR, RESIDING AT 23/1412,
OPPOSITE HOMOEO DISPENSARY, EDAKOCHI, COCHIN,
PIN-682010.
BY ADV SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE,COCHIN,
PIN-682009.
2 CHIEF ENGINEER AND ADMINISTRATOR,
COCHIN FISHERIES HARBOUR, THOPPUMPADY,
COCHIN, PIN-682005.
3 K.M.BABU, RB FRESH WATER SUPPLY,
COCHIN,PIN-682002.
4 COCHIN PORT LABOUR UNION (CITU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
B.HAMSA, S/O.MOHAMMED BAVA, RESIDING AT
CHIRATTAPALAM, K.B.JACOB ROAD, KOCHI-682001.
ADDL.R5 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.
(IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 AS PER ORDER DATED
25.05.2012 IN I.A.NO.5435 OF 2012)
2
W.P.(C) No.33533 of 2011
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.M.A.ASIF
SRI.BINU MATHEW
SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
SRI.TOM THOMAS KAKKUZHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) No.33533 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the Kerala Purse-Seine Boat
Owners Association, seeking the following reliefs:
1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs,
directions or commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to
take adequate measures for preventing the 4th respondent
and its workers, from collecting any amount from the purse-
seine boat owners operating from Thoppumpady Fishing
Harbour, without doing any work in or in connection with the
purse-seine boats and there should not be any compulsion
for the purse-seine boat owners to employ any workers of the
4th respondent/union to do any work in the purse-seine boat.
2. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs,
directions or orders compelling the 1st respondent to
consider Exhibit P7 representation and pass orders thereon,
as per law and after hearing the parties concerned.
3. To declare that collection of any amount from the value of the
catch of the purse-seine boat owners operating from
Thoppumpady Fishing Harbour by the 4th respondent/union
or its workers, without doing any actual work in or in
connection with the purse-seine boats, is absolutely illegal,
unjust and unsustainable.
4. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs,
directions or orders compelling the 1st respondent to ensure
that there is no threat or intimidation from the part of the 4th
respondent or its workers to the purse-seine boat owners and
the workers in the purse-seine boat, for operating their
business/activity from the Thoppumpady Fishing Harbour in
Cochin.
2. It is contended that the members of the petitioner
Association were directed to pay 3% of the value of total catch to
a group of persons known as 'Water Boys', as the cost of fresh
water loaded on the boats. It is contended by the petitioner
Association that the said Water Boys were not doing any actual
work and the demand of such 3% of the total catch is without any
basis. The said matter was pointed out before the 1st respondent,
who on an elaborate consideration of the issue, issued Ext.P4
proceedings dated 30.09.2011. In the said proceedings, the 1 st
respondent has found that the water is being supplied by one Sri.
K.M. Babu-3rd respondent herein, pursuant to a contract and that
3% of the catch was being collected by the Union representatives.
In the said proceedings at paragraph 15, the details of the activity
carried out by the workers are also recorded. It is pointed out in
paragraph 15 by the 1st respondent that the Water Boys are doing
activities like mooring of boats, cleaning the boats after loading
and shifting the boats to another location etc. After recording the
above activities, the 1st respondent came to the following findings:
"18. Enquiries reveal that in no other fisheries harbour in the
State is there a practice of taking 3% of the catch as payment
for the drinking water taken by the fishermen when they go
out to the seas for fishing. To charge the fishermen 3% of the
catch for their ration of drinking water and in a facility like the
Cochin Fisheries Harbour put up for their benefit, is
unconscionable. Recently on a voyage when a fishing boat
netted a catch of Rs.35 lakhs, the union collected Rs.1.05
lakhs in the name of water boys.
19. It has also come out from the proceedings that no onerous
tasks like unloading of fish from the boat or loading of ice prior
to voyage are being done by the water boys of the union.
Gently guiding the hose of the water supply contractor for
supplying water, cleaning of the boats and tying them up at
the designated area seems to be the basis of their claim to the
3%, which itself is higher than the share charged to other
categories of boats.
20. The conditions of the tender for supply of water have also
been perused. It states that "the work under the tender covers
supply of water to fishing vessels at Cochin Fisheries Harbour
from the water point provided in the wharf area." It further
states that "water supply by the Port shall be supplied only to
fishing vessels at Cochin Fisheries Harbour without complaint
from them." As such, the tender does not envisage supply of
water through middlemen as being practiced now.
21. It has come out in the proceedings above that the 3% of
the catch is being collected in the name of water boys whereas
this is not being passed on to the persons actually carrying out
the work.
22. As such, it is directed that the fishermen shall be supplied
drinking water by the contractor appointed for the purpose by
Cochin Port Trust directly at the rates fixed by the Port.
23. Any residual issues may be raised by those concerned and
affected before the competent officers in the Labour
Department of the Government of Kerala."
Thus, there is a positive finding rendered by the 1st respondent to
the effect that the claim regarding the work carried out by the
Water Boys of the Union appeared to be excessive, since there is
no onerous task like unloading fish from the boat or loading ice
etc. being carried out. Thereafter, it is found by the 1st respondent
Chairman that the fishermen shall be supplied drinking water by
the contractor appointed by the Cochin Port Trust directly at the
rates fixed by the Cochin Port Trust. It is also recorded that if
there are any residual issues, the same shall be raised before the
competent officers in the Labour Department of the State of Kerala.
3. The petitioner complains that even after Ext.P4, there
is a demand of 3% of the total catch by the representatives of the
4th respondent Union. In such circumstances, they have
submitted Ext.P5 representation to the 1st respondent in reply to
which Ext.P6 has been issued pointing out that the matter is to be
taken up with the Labour Department. Instead, the petitioner
submitted a detailed representation with the 1st respondent
Chairman dated 01.12.2011, pointing out the details of the
activities carried out with specific reference to the earlier order.
However, it is seen that the 1st respondent Chairman issued
Ext.R1(a) dated 22.12.2011 pointing out that they have nothing
to do with the matter and that it may be taken up with the Labour
Department.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the
present writ petition is only regarding the demand of 3% of the
total catch representing the payment to the Water Boys. At the
same time, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent points out
that even though the workers are called as "Water Boys", apart
from supplying water, such boys are also engaged in various
activities like mooring of boats, cleaning etc. He also states that
the workers are also engaged in loading and unloading of the catch
from the deck, which is disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent also pointed
out that the members of the Union are holding cards issued under
Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978.
5. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 also made
submissions with reference to Ext.R1(a), by which the Chairman
of the Port Trust pointed out that the matter may be taken up with
the Labour Department.
6. I have considered the submissions made across the Bar
as well as the relevant documents.
7. The dispute in this writ petition is essentially with respect
to the water that is being supplied to the members of the
petitioner Association. As regards such water supply, Ext.P4 gives
clear directions that boats are to be supplied with water at the
rates fixed by the Cochin Port Trust. It is only because there are
subsequent alleged instances whereby such collections are being
made by the members of the 4th respondent that the present writ
petition is filed. In such circumstances, it is for the 1st respondent
to consider the issue afresh taking note of the fact that the
members of the 4th respondent Union claim that they are also
engaged in various other activities like mooring of boats etc. and
it is on account of that the payments are being made by the
members of the petitioner's Association.
8. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent also pointed
out that pursuant to Ext.P4 order, they are not carrying out any
activity with respect to the supply of water to the members of the
petitioner Association except whenever there is a specific request
to that effect from the side of the concerned.
9. The 1st respondent cannot shut his eyes to the findings
rendered in Ext.P4 merely by saying that there is a labour dispute.
Being the Chairman of the Port Trust, he has to consider the
grievance of the boat owners as well as the members of the 4 th
respondent Union and come to appropriate findings. While doing
so, specific reference is also to be made to the findings already
rendered by the 1st respondent in Ext.P4.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the 1 st
respondent pointing out their grievances, if any. If such a
representation is filed within a period of one month from today,
the 1st respondent would dispose of the same after issuing notice
to the 4th respondent Union as well as any other Union in the
matter who is interested. Needless to say that the respective
parties may be heard personally before rendering a decision on
the representations.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
ln
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33533/2011
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
NO.ER 1069/11 DATED 30.11.2011.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14.09.2011.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED
23.09.2011 IN W. P. C. NO. 25079/11.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.
PS/CFH/WSB/2011 - C DATED 30.09.2011.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 8.11.2011.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 19.11.2011.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION
DATED1.12.2011.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF ADMINISTRATION REPORT AND
ANNUAL ACCOUNTS 2014-2015 TO 2016-2017 OF
COCHIN PORT TRUST.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL
BODY DATED 14.07.2018 OF THE
PETITIONER/ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
15.10.2011.
Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED ON
06.12.1999.
Exhibit R4(b)series: TRUE COPIES COPY THE WEEKLY STATEMENT
DATED 6.8.2011 AND 10.09.2011 OF THE BOAT
NIMA.
Exhibit R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY
BOAT OWNERS GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE WORKS
UNDERTAKEN BY THEIR WATER BOYS (HELPERS).
Exhibit R4(d) TRUE COPY COPY OF THEIDENTITY CARD
NO.07/03/157/98 WATER BOY ISSUED UNDER
RULE 26A OF THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS
RULES.
Exhibit R4(e) series:
s :TRUE COPIES OF THE WEEKLY STATEMENTS OF
: THE BUYING AGENT KJS MUNAMBAM DATED
21.9.2011 AND 23.09.2011.
Exhibit R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER ON 15.10.2011 BEFORE THE
SECRETARY, COMMUBIST PARTY OF INDIA
(MARXIST), DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.CFH/WSB/2011-C
DATED 22.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CFH/WSB/2011-C
DATED 26.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE KERALA
MATSYATHOZHILALI UNION, KOCHI.
Exhibit R1(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DO NO.PS/CFH/WSB/2011-
C DATED 30.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE CITY POLICE
COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.
