Court’s Decision
In WP(C) No. 18340 of 2025, the Kerala High Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer to provide sufficient and adequate police protection to the petitioner to perform headload work, as long as his registration under Rule 26A(3) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules remains valid. The Court held that disputes over registration do not justify obstruction of work, and that trade union members cannot take the law into their hands.
Facts
The petitioner, a registered headload worker with a valid Rule 26A(3) identity card, was allegedly being prevented from carrying out his work after shifting his trade union affiliation from the 4th respondent-Union to the 5th respondent-Union. The members of the former union obstructed him on the ground that they had submitted a complaint to the Assistant Labour Officer (ALO) to cancel his registration. Despite representations made by the petitioner, the police and labour authorities failed to act. A conciliation meeting was conducted by the ALO, which was abandoned once the 4th respondent informed that cancellation proceedings were underway.
The petitioner contended that as long as his registration remains valid, he has a legal right to work, irrespective of union affiliations.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner, a headload worker with valid registration under Rule 26A(3), can be denied the right to work due to objections from a trade union.
- Whether the police are duty-bound to protect a registered worker’s right to work pending adjudication of disputes regarding his registration.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the face of disputed facts surrounding the petitioner’s employment history.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that his change of trade union membership cannot be a ground to obstruct him from engaging in his lawful work. He holds a valid identity card issued under Rule 26A(3), and hence, is entitled to police protection against unlawful obstruction. He asserted that the 4th respondent is unlawfully interfering with his right to livelihood and that he has approached the authorities for protection but was denied assistance.
Respondent’s Arguments
The 4th respondent claimed that the petitioner had been employed as an NMR (Nominal Muster Roll) Watcher under the Forest Department between January 2020 to March 2023 and again from January to March 2025. Therefore, he could not simultaneously be a headload worker. It was contended that the petitioner fraudulently obtained the Rule 26A(3) registration and failed to disclose his Forest Department employment.
The 4th respondent initiated a dispute under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, challenging the petitioner’s registration. Citing the judgment in M/s. Goline Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (W.A. No. 261/2025), the respondent submitted that writ petitions seeking police protection should not become forums for adjudicating factual disputes.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that as per Rule 26A(3) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, a registered headload worker with a subsisting identity card is entitled to work. While there may be pending disputes regarding the legitimacy of the petitioner’s registration, such disputes must be adjudicated through proper legal channels. The pending conciliation or show-cause notice does not invalidate a registration.
The Court emphasized that police protection is warranted where unlawful obstruction is reported, and law enforcement is expected to ensure that a lawfully registered worker is not denied his right to work through coercion or threat.
Precedent Analysis
- M/s. Goline Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others (W.A. No. 261/2025):
Cited by the respondent to argue that factual disputes regarding employment rights cannot be resolved in writ petitions seeking police protection. - Reference in this case: The Court distinguished the precedent, holding that no factual adjudication was being undertaken here. Since the petitioner holds a valid registration and there is no cancellation yet, his right to work is not in doubt.
- Judgment in W.A. No. 1119 of 2019 (Exhibit R4(g)):
While not specifically analyzed in the judgment, it was placed on record, likely to support the general proposition that union-related disputes should follow statutory procedure.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that:
“Change of membership of a trade union cannot affect registration of a headload worker or his right to do headload work.”
It found that:
- The petitioner held a valid identity card under Rule 26A(3).
- Though the 4th respondent had challenged the registration, no cancellation had occurred.
- Preventing a validly registered worker from working was unlawful.
- Members of a trade union cannot “take law into their hands and use force to deny the right of a registered headload worker.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was maintainable and deserved relief.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:
- Respondents 1 and 2 (the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer) are to extend sufficient and adequate police protection to the petitioner to carry out headload work, including loading/unloading, so long as the petitioner possesses valid registration under Rule 26A(3).
Implications
This judgment reinforces that trade union disputes cannot override individual legal rights arising from statutory registration. It affirms the duty of the police to protect individuals from unlawful interference in their livelihood. The ruling provides a deterrent against coercive union practices and reaffirms judicial support for protecting the statutory rights of registered workers.
It also serves as a warning that raising factual allegations (e.g., parallel employment) must follow due procedure—mere initiation of cancellation proceedings does not empower union members to obstruct another’s work.
