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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
