Kerala High Court
Jnana Prakasam vs Natarajan on 16 November, 2001
Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, K. Balakrishnan Nair
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a registered headload worker under Kerala Headload Workers Rules could object to the granting of the registration to another headload worker when he makes an application for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. Learned Single Judge took the view that a registered worker has no such right and he is not an aggrieved party to prefer an appeal under Section 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules against the decision to give registration and identity card. Learned Single Judge upheld the order of the Asst. Labour Officer, Palakkad and set aside the order dated 23.7.2000 of the District Labour Officer, Palakkad. Aggrieved by the same this appeal is preferred.
2. Short facts which are necessary for disposal of this case are as follows: Writ Petitioners are headload workers engaged in loading and unloading work in the Timber Sales Depot of the Forest Department at Walayar in Pudussery Panchayat in Palakkad District. They were granted registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 by the Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad. They were also issued identity cards. Respondents 4 to 18 are also headload workers in the locality engaged in doing loading and unloading work at Walayar Forest Coupe. When registration and identity cards were issued to the petitioners, respondents 4 to 18 on 18.7.2000 filed appeal before the second respondent under Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules 1981 objecting the grant of registration claiming exclusive right to do loading and unloading work in the Timber Depot in the Walayar Coupe areas. On receipt of the appeal, second respondent issued notice dated 19.7.2000 to the first petitioner and third respondent in the Writ Petition. No notice was served on the petitioners 2 to 22 and they were not heard in the proceedings. Second respondent allowed the appeal on 23.7.2000 and ordered cancellation of the registration as well as identity cards issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the Writ Petition was preferred.
3. Learned Single Judge found that the order passed by the District Labour Officer cannot be sustained. The learned Judge further ordered that the co-workers who were already got registration under the Rules cannot challenge the registration and identity card issued to another set of workers. It was also ordered that they are not the aggrieved persons within the meaning of Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules so as to prefer appeal challenging the order passing under Rule 26A of the Rules. In other words, learned Judge held that the appeal is incompetent.
4. Counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri. K. Ramakumar submitted that the learned single Judge has committed an error by holding that the appellants are not aggrieved persons and the appeal preferred by them cannot be entertained. According to the counsel, the expression used in Rule 26C is "any person aggrieved". The word "any" has to be given a wider meaning and therefore a registered headload worker can always challenge the registration given to another worker. Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners Shri P.N. Raveendran on the other hand submitted that a registered headload worker has no legal right to challenge the order passed by the authorities under the Headload Workers Act and the Rules.
5. The headload workers is a new species of workmen who appeared in the scene in the late 1960s. Emergence of these workmen took place at the first instance at bus stations and markets. But, this slowly spread to almost every village of the State during 1970s. The headload workers were organised under various trade unions affiliated to political parties. They were considered as a group of belligerent and quarrelsome group, always charging exorbitant wages even for carrying petty loads. They enforced the wage rate prescribed by themselves by monopolizing the right to do loading and unloading work in a particular area. "Engage them or do not engage nobody" was their motto. This monopoly brought in affluence and headload work became a lucrative job and this prompted many to attempt to enter the field under the leadership of rival unions. This led to clashes. Support of a trade union or a political party with sufficient muscle power became necessary for protecting the work of a headload worker. In clashes between existing workman and new workmen, police used to interfere as such clashes resulted in creating grave law and order problems in the locality. In some cases, compromises were arrived at and the new entrants got a share of the cake. In some cases, they were driven back and in some other, the new entrants occupied the entire field driving out the old workmen. When the clash between the different groups of workmen became a perennial problem, the legislature stepped in by enacting the Headload Workers Act. It provided for various welfare measures and also contained provisions to avoid the exploitation of workmen. Some measure of fixity of employment was provided by providing for registration of existing workmen in an area. There was a provision for granting registration to new workmen also under the Rules. So, the various disputes and resultant clashes as to who were working in a particular are were settled with the registration of all existing headload workers. As mentioned earlier, the workmen were members of any one of the various trade unions and if they are expelled from the union, they will lose their job. To save the workman from the hegemony of the unions, the Headload Workers Scheme was introduced. Another purpose of the Scheme was to prevent the charging of exorbitant wages by the workmen. Where the Scheme is introduced, the concerned local committed became their employer. The contractors or the shop owners who require the services of headload workers, inform the local committee which in turn provides with the workmen. The wages at the prescribed rates are paid to the committee directly. There are two types of headload workers called attached worker and unattached worker. Attached workmen are permanently employed by the shop owners or the contractors as the case may be. They also require registration under the Headload Workers Rules. The dispute regarding this proposition has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in its decision in Raghavan v. The Superintendent of Police, Palghat (Reported in 1998 (2) KLT 372 = 1000 (1) ILR (Ker.) 107). The unattached workmen do the loading and unloading work in a particular area. They do loading and unloading work in the various establishments in that area. They also do casual works that may arise as a result of construction of buildings, etc. In the above background, we may refer to the relevant statutory provisions.
6. We have to examine in this case, the scope of Rules 26A and 26C and other related provisions to determine whether a registered headload worker has got the locus standi to challenge the registration given to another worker and whether he is an aggrieved person so as to maintain an appeal under Rule 26A of the Rules. From the preamble, it is evident that the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 was enacted to regulate the employment of headload workers in the State of Kerala and to make provision for their welfare and for the settlement of disputes in respect of their employment or non-employment and for matters connected therewith. Section 43 of the Act enables the State Government to make Rules so as to carry out the purposes of the Act. Accordingly, Government of Kerala framed Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. Rule 26A deals with registration of Headload Workers. We may extract the said provision for easy reference.
"26A. Registration of Headload Workers :-
(1) Any headload worker may submit his application for registration in Form IX to the Registering Authority concerned, with as may additional copies as there are employers or contractors from whom he claims to work.
(2) On receipt of such application the Registering Authority shall issue notice in Form X to the employers or contractors from whom the headload worker claims work, with copy of the application inviting objections, if any, on such application.
(3) After considering the objections, if any, received and after giving an opportunity of being heard, the Registering Authority shall register the name of the headload worker in the Register of Headload Workers, on being satisfied that the headload worker is eligible for registration and communicate the fact to the parties within two weeks of such registration. The Registering Authority shall also issue identity card to the registered headload worker (in Form XI). If the names is not registered, the Registering Authority shall communicate the fact to the applicant with reasons therefor."
7. The above mentioned provisions enable any headload worker to submit an application for registration in Form No. IX to the Registering Authority concerned with as many additional copies as there are employers or contractors from whom he claims to work. On receipt of such application, the Registering Authority shall issue notice in Form X to the employers or contractors from whom the headload worker claims work with copy of the application inviting objections, if any on such application. After considering the objections, if any, received and after giving an opportunity of being heard, the Registering Authority shall register the name of the headload worker in the Register of Headload Workers, on being satisfied that the headload worker is eligible for registration and communicate the fact to the parties within two weeks of such registration. The Registering Authority shall also issue identity card to the registered headload worker in Form XI. If the name is not registered, the Registering Authority shall communicate the fact to the applicant with reasons. The identity card in Form XI contains the following particulars:
"1. Registration Number.
2. Name of the Worker.
3. Address of the worker.
4. Age and date of birth.
5. Nature of work.
6. Name and address of the employer, if the worker is employed by a particular employer
7. Area where the worker normally works."
Column (6) relates to an attached worker whereas column (7) relates to an unattached worker who does the work that may arise in a particular area. The area is specified to avoid clashes between the groups of workmen working in different areas.
8. An appeal is provided against the order passed under rule 26A(3) to an officer not below the rank of District Labour Officer notified by Government as Appellate Authority. It is relevant to extract the said appeal provision:-
"26C. Appeal-
(1) Any person aggrieved by an Order of the Registering Authority under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 26A may file an appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of such order before an officer not below the rank of District Labour Officer notified by Government as Appellate Authority in this behalf;.....
(2) On receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority may make such enquiries as he deems fit and after giving the employer employers if any and headload worker an opportunity of being heard and decide the appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the appeal. The decision of the appellate authority shall be final".
9. The decision in this Appeal will rest upon the interpretation given to the words "any person aggrieved" in Rule 26C(1). Going by the literal meaning, any person who considers himself aggrieved will be able to file an appeal. With regard to the question whether the existing workmen can be said to be persons aggrieved by the grant of registration of fresh workmen in an area, the learned Single Judge was of the view that they cannot be said to be persons aggrieved. The words "persons aggrieved"
have been read down only to include persons who have a right of hearing at the time of registration of the workmen. Such persons are the applicants and the employers. In relation to registration of attached workmen who are employed in a particular shop, third parties cannot have any right of hearing or any right of appeal. In the case of registration of workmen in a particular area, at the first instance, "aggrieved persons"
will include only the applicants and the contractors. But when it comes to the case of application by new workmen in an area where there are already a set of workmen, the interpretation given by the l earned single Judge will not be correct. If in an area fresh workmen also enter, that will result in sharing the cake by more mouths relating in depletion of the share of existing workmen. This will affect the livelihood of the existing workmen which is considered as a concomitant of the right of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. The Supreme Court in its decision in Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. ((1985) 3 SCC 545) has held as follows:
"Upon that assumption, the question which we have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one answer to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right of life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life....."
Again in Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress and Ors. (1991 Supp (1) SCC 600), Sawant, J. in a concurring judgment with the majority commented:
"The right to life includes right to livelihood..... Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental.....".
11. So, the action of the Registration Officer in granting registration to workmen in the very same area where there are other registered workmen will definitely affect the availability of work to the existing workmen which will deplete the income they have received till the entry of new workmen. This will affect their livelihood which is part of their right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the existing workmen can certainly maintain an appeal.
12. Reference was made during hearing of this Appeal to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 26A which reads as follows:
"4. The registration of a person as headload worker may be cancelled by an officer above the rank of the Registering Authority after satisfying himself on a report from Registering Authority that the Registration has been obtained by fraud or mistake."
Counsel for the Writ Petitioners relied on this provision to submit that if a registration is obtained by fraud or mistake, an Officer higher in rank to the Registration Officer could cancel it. According to the learned counsel, this is the only provision which could be availed by the existing workmen. We are not inclined to accept the said view. We prefer the view putforward by the counsel for the appellants that going by the plain meaning of the words, the existing workmen will definitely be entitled to maintain an appeal.
13. Further, it is in public interest also to accept such an interpretation. In a case where there are surplus workmen in an area, if additional registration is granted behind the back of the existing workmen, they will be left without any remedy. All of them may have to rush to this Court directly to invoke the remedy under Article 226. In view of the finding of the learned Single Judge that the existing workmen are not persons aggrieved for the purpose of Rule 26C(1), the maintainability of their Writ Petition will also be open to doubt. Without any remedy left to them, they may take recourse to street fights to protect their work, which can create serious law and order problem. The mischief sought to be remedied by the Headload Workers Act and Rules was to provide, inter alia, for a machinery to solve the disputes regarding employment, non-employment, etc. of the workmen amicably. So, one of the main objects of the Act will itself be frustrated. Therefore, in the light of the well settled cannons of interpretation, the view taken by the learned Single Judge requires reversal and we do so.
14. But, we affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent it quashes Ext. P5. The appellate authority shall rehear Ext. P2 appeal with an opportunity of being heard to all affected parties including the writ petitioners and a decision thereon shall be taken in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such decision is taken, status-quo as on today will continue. The dearth or surplus of workmen in an area should be the main criteria in deciding whether additional workmen should be granted registration. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding merit of the case put forward by the writ petitioners regarding the need for granting registration to additional workers.
15. The Writ Appeals is disposed of as above.