Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Beverages ... vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2024
Author: N. Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2024:KER:71136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY,THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024/3RD ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17140 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES
(MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
3RD FLOOR, NORTH 2,
AMAR BUILDING, VANDIPOTTA,
CHAKKORATHKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673 011
(ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGER,
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION,
FL-9 WAREHOUSE, BATTATHUR,
KASARAGODE DISTRICT).,
PIN - 673011
BY ADV NAVEEN.T
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
THOZHIL BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695004
3 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS ACT, 1978
2024:KER:71136
W.P.(C) No.17140/2024
:2:
KANNUR, PADANAPALAM,
KANNUR., PIN - 670001
4 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
KASARAGODE,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
KASARAGODE, PIN - 671121
5 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GR-I,
KASARAGODE,
OFFICE OF THE ASST.LABOUR OFFICER,
KASARAGODE, PIN - 671121
6 THE SECRETARY,
HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (CITU),
KUMBALA AREA COMMITTEE,
V VASU MEMORIAL BUILDING,
SEETHANGOLI,
KASARAGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671321
ADDL.R7 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD
KASARAGOD DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
ARAFA BUILDING, MG ROAD,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
KERALA, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
(ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 25.09.2024 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2024)
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRASAD V.P
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY
SMT.ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 14.08.2024 AND THE COURT ON 25.09.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:71136
W.P.(C) No.17140/2024
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.17140 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2024
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing
and Marketing) Corporation Limited is the petitioner. The
petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P2 and P5 and to direct the 4 th
respondent to reconsider the entire aspect and pass fresh
orders after affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that the loading and
unloading charges of the headload work in the FL-1 Shops
are governed by the sanctioning order issued by the
Company Secretary on the basis of consensus between
Corporation and Unions. The Company Secretary issued a
sanctioning order on 23.02.2021, valid for a period of two
2024:KER:71136
years from 01.01.2021. As per the said order loading and
unloading charges at the FL-1 shop at Seethangoli, is ₹4.08
per case. 27% of the amount is to be paid by the
Corporation. Thus, the total amount for loading and unloading
of a case is ₹5.18.
3. The 6th respondent-Union Secretary
preferred a complaint to the Assistant Labour Officer, seeking
increase of loading and unloading charges in the outlet. A
meeting was held among the stake holders on 04.09.2023. A
conciliation was conducted by the District Labour Officer. The
6th respondent demanded 30% increase in the wages. The
petitioner stated that an increase to the tune of 15% percent
is feasible and any increase beyond 15% requires decision of
the Board. To the predicament of the petitioner, the 4 th
respondent issued Ext.P2 order dated 21.10.2023, under
Section 21(4) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978,
increasing the loading and unloading charges by 25%. The
petitioner states that the 4th respondent has not assigned any
cogent reason for effecting 25% increase.
2024:KER:71136
4. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the
3rd respondent-Deputy Labour Commissioner. The petitioner
pointed out that the increase granted by the 3 rd respondent is
exorbitant comparing to the rates applicable to many FL-1
Shops in Kerala. A sudden increase of 25% from the existing
rate is not financially viable for the Corporation. Ext.P2 order
was passed without taking note of the prevailing consumer
price index. The petitioner further alleged that the petitioner
was denied sufficient opportunity to establish their case.
5. The 3rd respondent, however, affirmed
Ext.P2 order of the 4th respondent and rejected the appeal
filed by the petitioner, as per Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order was
passed holding that a few of the FL-1 shops within Kasaragod
District are having higher rates than the rate fixed in the FL-1
shop in question.
6. The petitioner states that the 3 rd respondent
miserably failed to note that the rates fixed in many FL-1
shops are lower than the rate now fixed as per Ext.P2. The
2024:KER:71136
3rd respondent failed to appreciate that a straight jacket
formula cannot be applied to all the FL-1 shops in a District.
The location of the shop, living costs and other relevant
aspects had to be taken note of while taking a decision.
Exts.P2 and P5 are therefore highly illegal and arbitrary and
are liable to be set aside, urged the petitioner.
7. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit.
The 6th respondent submitted that the petitioner is duty bound
to follow the Government approved wages. The wages
should be almost equal to the wages disbursed in other
outlets in the District. Comparing to the wages structure in
other FL-1 Shops, it can be seen that the workers are
claiming only reasonable enhancement of wages. The
petitioner has not advanced any legal grounds to interfere
with the decision taken by the 4th respondent.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel representing the
2024:KER:71136
6th respondent. I have also heard the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the additional 7th respondent.
9. Exts.P2 and P5 orders have been passed in
exercise of the powers of respondents 4 and 5 conferred
under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. The
6th respondent raised a dispute relating to wages. As the
conciliation done by the 5th respondent did not succeed, the
matter was referred to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent
passed Ext.P2 order directing 25% enhancement in the
existing rate of wages. The said decision has been upheld by
the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P5 order.
10. The FL-1 Shop in question is situated at
Seethangoli. The petitioner would submit that as per the
enhanced rate, the petitioner will have to pay at the rate of
₹6.48 per case as loading-unloading charges to the headload
workers at Seethangoli, whereas the rate is ₹5.33 at
Perladukkam and ₹5.72 at Mulleria. The petitioner therefore
would urge that 25% enhancement granted to FL-1,
2024:KER:71136
Seethangoli shop is excessive and exorbitant.
11. While fixing wages, the authorities have to
take into consideration various factors including the location,
work availability in the area, etc. Ext.R6(a) is an information
provided by the Public Information Officer of the petitioner-
Company. Ext.R6(a) would indicate that the rate of wages
per case at FL-1 (14002), Kasaragod Old is ₹7.62. Wages at
FL-1 (14003), Perladukkam is ₹6.13 and that at FL-1 (14005),
Mulleria is ₹6.50. The wages paid at FL-1 (14006), Bandadka
Bus Stand is ₹7.56 whereas wages at FL-1 (14008), State
Warehousing Corporation is ₹7.96. At FL-1 (14009),
Moonnamkutty, the wages is ₹7.47 and at FL-1 (14010),
Odayanchal Road, the wage is ₹7.12. In the afore shops,
average monthly sales varies from ₹7 lakhs to ₹25 lakhs.
12. The average monthly sales in respect of FL-
1 (14001), Seethangoli in respect of which the dispute now
exists, is ₹9 lakhs. FL-1 (14006), Bandadka Bus Stand also
has the average monthly sale of ₹9 lakhs. The approved
2024:KER:71136
wages there is ₹7.96 per case. The Seethangoli shop also
has ₹9 lakhs as average monthly sales. Even after 25%
enhancement ordered under Exts.P2 and P5, the wage
payable there is only ₹6.48 per case. The afore facts would
indicate that the enhancement of wages as ordered as per
Exts.P2 and P5 is not excessive as contended by the
petitioner.
13. These facts were adverted to in Ext.P5
order. Respondents 4 and 5 have compared the wage
structure at various outlets of the petitioner. The decision has
been taken only thereafter. In the afore facts, I do not find
any illegality or arbitrariness in Exts.P2 and P5 orders.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/24.09.2024
2024:KER:71136
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17140/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTIONING ORDER NO.
KSBC/SEC2/RTHL104/2020-21 DATED 23-2-
2021 ISSUED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY
OF THE CORPORATION.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G(3)
3986/2023 DATED 21-10-2023 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL (APPEAL
NO.2/2023) PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER-CORPORATION BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 2-2-2024 TO
THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE
CORPORATION.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-2-2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN HLWA
NO.2/2023.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R6(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE PETITIONERS
COMPANY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED
22.06.2024
