K. Sreedharan, J.@mdashWhen C.M.P. No. 1928/90 came up for orders, I heard learned counsel appearing on either side in detail. Since all
arguments, raised by the parties in the pleadings, have been put forward at length, I am disposing of the Original Petition itself. First petitioner is a
company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Government of Kerala allotted land in the industrial development area, Kochuveli for the
company to start Flour Mill. Machines required for the Mill were imported from Hungry. Highly sophisticated and modern machineries have been
installed. The Mill started production in early January, 1990, For the purpose of loading and unloading wheat and wheat products first petitioner
engaged a contractor 2nd petitioner. He has his permanent workers. The wheat lifted from Food Corporation of India Godown were brought to
the factory on 6-1-1990. Persons claiming to be members of the unions headed by respondents 4 to 11 obstructed the unloading work. Petitioners
sought the help of police for getting the wheat unloaded.. With much difficulty the quantity brought on 6-1-1990 could be unloaded. When lorry
loads of wheat were brought to the Mill on 9-1-1990 followers of respondents 4 to 11 damaged the goods, pelted stones on the factory and
caused injury to the workers. Members of the staff of the company were beaten up. One had to be admitted in the hospital. On account of the
obstruction caused by the followers of respondents 4 to 11 the work could not be carried on in the factory. Petitioners sought help of respondents
2 and 3 for carrying on the work in the factory without any obstruction from the followers of respondents 4 to 11. No effective protection was
afforded by respondents 2 and 3 Hence this Original Petition.
2. Petitioners filed C.M.P. No. 2051/1990 for impleading the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum, as Additional 12th respondent That
petition was allowed and the officer has, been impleaded as Additional 12th respondent. On the basis of the instruction received from him, learned
Government Pleader submitted before court that no Scheme under the Headload Workers Act, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, has been
extended to the place where the factory belonging to the petitioners is located.
3. Counter affidavits have been filed by almost all the contesting respondents. The contentions raised therein are that the Headload workers in the
locality alone are entitled to attend to the loading and unloading works in the factory. By engaging permanent workers, petitioners cannot deny the
Headload workers of the locality employment. The permanent workers engaged by the petitioners are not registered Headload workers either The
so-called permanent employees having not been registered under the Act are not entitled'' to attend to the loading and unloading works.
4. The Kerala Headload Worker''s Welfare Fund Board represented by its Chief Executive has filed C.M.P. No. 1928/90 for impleadment in this
proceeding. The averments made therein are that the business of the petitioners come under the coverage of the Act and the Scheme framed there-
under, that the scheme has been notified on 4-1-1985 for Wards 1 to 50 of Trivandrum Corporation, that the Committee which is to be
constituted under the Act has to take over the loading and unloading works available in the are a and that the registration formalities are in
progress. It, is therefore, stated that the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board is a necessary party in this proceeding.
5. As stated earlier, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum has stated that the Scheme under the Act has not been extended to Kochuveli
where the establishment belonging to the petitioners is situated. Since the Scheme has not been extended I do not think it necessary"" to implead the
Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board in this proceeding. Even otherwise, under the Act if there is any dispute regarding the implementation of
the provisions of the Act. the dispute is to be settled by the Labour Officer. The Board has no locus standi to get itself impleaded in this
proceeding. Accordingly, the Board''s application, CMP. 1928/90, is dismissed.
6. Petitioners have their own permanent employees to attend to the loading and unloading works in their factory. When such is the position, can a
Headload worker claim right to attend to the loading and unloading work in the factory U/s. 18 of the Act, the Government is to appoint
committees for specified areas for the purpose of exercising the powers and performing the functions of the committee''s under the Act and the
Scheme in relation to that area. This shows that the Committee is to be constituted for those areas to which the Scheme has been extended.
According to 12th respondent, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the area where the factory of the petitioners is situated, is not one to which the
Scheme has been extended. Even in respect of an area to which the Scheme is extended the function of the committee is dealt with clause (8) of
Section 18 of the Act. Sub-clause (a) of clause (8) of Section 18 casts a duty on the Committee to pool the headload workers who are not
employed under any employer or contractor. To such headload workers who are so pooled, work is to be allotted. The Committee is entrusted
with the responsibility to arrange and regulate employment of the headload workers who are pooled. The Committee has no plenary power to
control all loading and unloading work in any area. If such be the authority of the Committee, I cannot accept the argument advanced by
respondents 4 to 11 that their members alone are to attend to the loading and unloading work in the petitioners'' establishment. As per the Act,
registered headload worker can get the work assigned depending on the requirement of the employer. The allotment is also to be made by the
committee. The Scheme of the Act does not recognise any union of headload workers. So, no union can advance a claim on behalf of its members
to attend to the loading and unloading work in an establishment. In other words a union cannot pressurise the employer to engage its members only
to carry on the work. An employer who has got permanent workers to attend to the loading and unloading work cannot be forced to engage the
members of any union. If a concern is having its permanent employees to attend to the loading and unloading workers, then the headload workers
in the locality cannot claim any right to be engaged by such employer. If an employer who has no permanent employees to attend to the loading
and unloading work or an employer having such permanent workers requires service of others to attend to the loading and unloading work in his
establishment, then such an employer has to approach the committee u/s. 18 of the Act for getting the headload workers allotted to him. Only in
such a situation can the headload workers, registered under the Act claim work in the establishment belonging to an employer. On a reading of the
provisions of the Act, the Rules framed there-under and the Scheme published, it is evident that the provisions contained therein will not apply to
an establishment having permanent workers to attend to the loading and unloading work, If an employer does not require the services of additional
workers for attending to the loading and unloading works, no head-load worker can interfere with the loading and unloading work in the
establishment when it is carried on by permanent workers. Petitioners have got their permanent workers to attend to the loading and unloading
works. Neither respondents 4 to 11 nor their followers and sympathisers, have got the right to interfere with the petitioners'' right to carry on the
work of loading and unloading with their permanent workers. In case, respondents 4 to 11 and their followers and supporters cause any
obstructions to the loading and unloading work within the premises of the petitioners'' establishment, that obstruction will have to be removed by
respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 should take effective and adequate steps to give protection to the petitioners and their permanent
workers to carry on the loading and unloading works in their establishment without any obstruction from respondents 4 to 11, their supporters and
followers.
The Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms.