Kerala High Court
P.Purushothaman vs The Chairman on 26 December, 2011
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2013/9TH SRAVANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 7458 of 2012 (F)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
P.PURUSHOTHAMAN,SECRETARY,
HEADLOAD AND GENRAL WORKERS UNION, CITU
MATTANNUR AREA COMMITTEE. (CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION)
BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD
KANNUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KANNUR-670 702.
2. THE DISTRICT SECRETARY
KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD
KANNUR DISTRICTCOMMITTEE, KANNUR-670 702.
3. N.JANARDHANAN
RETAIL OIL MERCHANT, AJALNA TRADERS, MATTANNUR
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702.
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE &
ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD, SC, KHWWB
R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-07-
2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 7458/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/12/2011.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD TAKEN ON 23/1/2012.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.12556/1993.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.614/2012 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OOF THE JUDGMENT IN RP 392/2012 IN OP 12556/9333 OF THIS COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL
ks.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 7458 of 2012-F
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st July, 2013
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the Secretary of Headload and General Workers Union (CITU), Mattannur Area Committee inter alia contending that the 3rd respondent, who is conducting a business in a Scheme covered area under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and Rules framed thereunder is employing headload workers without registration of his workers under the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. Hence the petitioner seeks for a direction to the 1st respondent to take appropriate decision on Ext.P1 and to implement Ext.P2 decision.
2. Ext.P1 is a representation submitted by the petitioner to the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, the 1st respondent herein pointing out the fact that the 3rd respondent is employing headload workers without registering them under the Act and demanding W.P.(C) No. 7458 of 2012-F 2 employment only in respect of persons who are registered under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has taken a decision on 23.1.2012 as per Ext.P2, confirming that the 3rd respondent shall only employ persons who are registered headload workers in his establishment and that if he has his own employees, they should be registered under the Act and the Rules. The complaint is that after passing Ext.P2 order, no action has taken by the 1st respondent to implement the said direction.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that his establishment does not come within the meaning of establishment as defined under section 2(j) of the Act and therefore he has no obligation to register his workers under the Act nor is he entitled to employ registered headload workers. The schedule to the Act inter alia indicates establishments which includes "grocery markets or shops". According to the petitioner, W.P.(C) No. 7458 of 2012-F 3 he is conducting retail business exclusively in oil, coconut cake, copra cattle/poultry field. It being a small business, it does not come within the purview of the Act. The petitioner has filed a reply reiterating the contentions urged and contending that the petitioner is an oil merchant and has substantial business.
4. On a perusal of the averments made by the parties, it is not in dispute that the Muttannur Municipality is a Scheme covered area under the Act and the Kerala Headload workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1983 (for short the Scheme). In terms of the Scheme, no headload worker who is not a registered headload worker under the provisions of the Act and Rules shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies. Paragraph 6 (2) of the Scheme further provides that from the date of commencement of the Scheme, no headload worker, who is not permanently employed by an employer shall be allowed to work in the W.P.(C) No. 7458 of 2012-F 4 area unless he is granted further registration under the Scheme. The employer has to take registration in respect of the headload worker employed by him. Failure to comply with the aforesaid provision is faced with penalty proceedings under S. 29 of the Act. Going by the provisions of the Scheme as well as the provisions of the Act, it is not disputed that if the 3rd respondent is employing any person temporarily or permanently for the purpose of loading and unloading works, it can either be by the registered headload workers in the area or if the employer has permanently employed a person such persons should be registered under the provisions of the Scheme.
5. The only dispute raised by the respondent is with reference to the fact that his business is not covered by the definition of establishment under the Act. Learned counsel for either sides relies upon the plain meaning of "grocer" in various Dictionaries to support their respective W.P.(C) No. 7458 of 2012-F 5 arguments. In Ramanatha Iyer, the meaning of 'grocery' is shown as "a term which may include all such goods and merchandise as are usually kept in such stores as are called dry goods and grocery stores". In another Dictionary the meaning of 'grocer' is shown as a dealer in staple foodstuffs, household supplies, usu. meats, produce, and dairy products.
6. The term grocer is not defined under the Act and therefore what is relevant is only the Dictionary meaning. In Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the meaning of 'grocer' is shown as "a person who owns, manages or works in a shop/store selling food and other things used in the home". In the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, the meaning 'grocer' is shown as a dealer in staple foods, general household supplies. Apparently among certain other products, which are not household items the 3rd respondent also sells oil. The items which are sold by the 3rd respondent includes oil, coconut cake, W.P.(C) No. 7458 of 2012-F 6 copra cattle/poultry fields. Going by the Scheme of the Act, one cannot limit the meaning of the work "grocery shop" as involving only the sale of foodstuffs and a wider meaning has to be given which involves loading and unloading of goods. At any rate the 3rd respondent is also engaged in the sale of oil. Having regard to the said view, I am of the opinion that the business activity of the 3rd respondent is an establishment as defined under the Act.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to take further proceeding pursuant Ext.P2 for implementing the directions issued therein. This may be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
rka /true copy/