AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.Nagaresh, J
The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the alleged obstructions caused by the 5th respondent and its members from distributing articles.
The petitioner states that he is conducting a firm M/s. Shebin Agencies for distribution of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG). The petitioner has his own delivery boys for delivering consumer goods to shops and other establishments. On 01.07.2022, the workers of the 5th respondent-Union obstructed the petitioner’s delivery boys from delivering goods to shops, claiming that members of the 5th respondent-Union alone have the right to do the said work.
The petitioner preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station in this regard. However, the complaint remained unattended. The petitioner would submit that the petitioner has a Godown where loading and unloading activities are involved. The petitioner is engaging the Pool workers in his Godown.
As far as the delivery of goods to the shops and other establishments is concerned, the petitioner has his own delivery boys who are being engaged from the very beginning. Members of the 5th respondent cannot have a legal claim to do delivery work. The petitioner pointed out that the All Kerala Distributors Association had approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C) No. 38742/2016, and this Court delivered Ext.P4 judgment, wherein it was held that in the matter of distribution of goods by agencies, the headload workers cannot have any right.
The 5th respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the 5th respondent, it is submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court making incorrect statements. The petitioner does not have registered headload workers holding Rule 26A cards. If the goods are unloaded from van and taken to the shops or other establishments, the said activity would amount to loading and unloading. When such work is in a Scheme operationalized area, only registered headload workers having registration under the Scheme can do the said work.
The 5th respondent further pointed out that the petitioner is delivering bulk goods in Medical College Hospital. Those are huge quantities of materials which indeed involve unloading activities. Therefore, members of the 5th respondent alone are entitled to do the said work.
The Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 4th respondent and resisted the writ petition. The 4th respondent submitted that the headload workers Medical College Pool was commenced in January, 1998. There are 17 registered headload workers in the Pool. The Pool workers are not engaged for loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner. When a complaint was received, the petitioner was called for a meeting on 03.09.2022. However, the petitioner did not respond. According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner’s establishment is registered with the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, Marapalam. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to engage headload workers registered under the Scheme.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent.
The petitioner is having a distribution agency of Fast Moving Consumer Goods. The petitioner would submit that in his godown where loading and unloading activities are involved, the petitioner is engaging Pool workers. For the said purpose, the petitioner has obtained registration under the Board also. The petitioner’s grievance is regarding the obstruction caused by the 5th respondent and his members in delivery of consumer goods in shops and other establishments.
It is seen from Ext.P4 judgment that the issue as to whether the headload workers have exclusive right over delivery of goods by the distribution agencies, came up for consideration before this Court and this Court held that loading and unloading activity is not the predominant activity of distributors and that the registered headload workers cannot have any claim over such activities. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to protection.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to give adequate protection to the petitioner for delivery of goods of the petitioner's unit using his own delivery boys. If the 5th respondent has a case that they have right over the delivery activities being carried out by the petitioner, the 5th respondent is at liberty to approach the concerned conciliation authority under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. Needless to say, the orders in this writ petition will be subject to any lawful orders that may be passed by the statutory authorities.