If Registered Persons In Headload Workers Scheme Applicable Area Have Desired Skills, Only They Can Load/Unload Delicate Articles: Kerala HC

A single judge bench of Justice V. G. Arun came to this conclusion after adopting a "purposive interpretation" of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme.

"On purposive interpretation of the above provisions, in the backdrop of the social changes over the years, it has to be held that if the registered headload workers in a Scheme covered area are having the requisite skill and experience in handling delicate or sophisticated articles, they are bound to be engaged for the loading and unloading work," the court said.  

The high court said that the objective of the Act, which is to regulate the employment of headload workers and make provision for their welfare, is to be borne in mind. 

It further noted that Section 2(m) of the Act excludes workers engaged for loading and unloading of delicate or sophisticated articles from the definition of 'headload worker'. Further proviso to Section 9A of the Act enables the employer to engage persons other than registered headload workers, if the work requires assistance of skilled persons or use of machinery. However, Clause 6 of the Scheme says that only registered headload workers shall be allowed to work in a scheme covered area.

The Court then observed:

"It is evident from the provisions that the law makers had not envisaged a situation where the registered headload workers themselves are skilled persons. The omission probably was due to the general perception that headload workers survive on their physical ability and brawn alone. Here, it is essential to note that, many among the headload workers, especially the youngsters, are well educated and capable of acquiring the special skills required for handling sophisticated or delicate articles. It is for the Government and the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board to take necessary steps in that regard. If not, the laudable objective of the Act will be defeated by every other employer claiming that the headload works in his establishment require the service of persons with special skills". 

The Act defines a headload worker as a person engaged/employed directly/through a contractor in or for an establishment, for loading/unloading/carrying on head/ in a trolly, any article/s in or from or to a vehicle or any place in such establishment. The definition does not include a person engaged by an individual for domestic purposes. It however includes any person not employed by any employer or contractor but engaged in the loading or unloading or carrying on head or person or in a trolly any article or articles for wages. 

Background

The petitioner firm–R. K. Ventures had approached the Court seeking police protection to load and unload sensitive articles in their warehouse without the interference of the members of Social Democratic Trade Union (SDTU) and Ernakulam District Loading and Uploading Workers Union (INTUC). 

They claimed that the registered headload workers in the area are obstructing the loading and unloading activity carried in the warehouse. They submitted before the court that these are sensitive and sophisticated materials like electronic panels, diesel generators and allied items. If they are handled by unskilled persons, these items can be damaged. Some items are loaded and unloaded using cranes and forklifts, the petitioner said. The petitioner relied on Section 2(m) and Section 9A of the Act to argue that registered headload workers need not be employed when the articles to be unloaded are sophisticated and delicate and some are done with the aid of machinery.

Meanwhile the registered headload workers said that they have documents to prove that they have requisite skill for handling delicate or sophisticated articles.

It was submitted before the Court that the Assistant Labour Officer had called a meeting when a complaint was filed by the leader of a pool of headload workers saying that they were not engaged for work by the petitioner. In that meeting, the representative of petitioner firm took a stand that the registered headload workers won't be engaged. It was contended that the area is scheme covered and as the registered headload workers are having the requisite skill and experience, they are bound to be engaged. 

Findings

The Court thereafter said that as per the mechanism in the Act, if no settlement is arrived at the conciliation conference called by the Assistant Labour Officer, the matter must be sent to the Conciliation Officer. If the parties do not settle in the conciliation proceedings called by the Conciliation Officer, the officer can take a decision on the dispute. If anyone is aggrieved by the decision of the Conciliation Officer, they can submit an appeal to the Appellate Authority, it added. 

The Court held that it would be inappropriate to grant police protection before the remedies for conflict resolution mentioned in the Act are exhausted. Disposing of the plea the court directed the authorities under the Headload Workers Act to decide the dispute between the petitioner firm and the unions, as per procedure prescribed under Section 21 of the Act. It further granted the parties liberty to raise their contentions before the authorities. 

Case Title: M/s R. K. Ventures v The District Superintendent of Police and Others

Case No: WP(C) No. 4739 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 624