Kerala High Court : “‘Nokku Kooli’ Is Extortion and Unconstitutional”: Orders FIRs for “Gawking Charges,” Criticizes Enforcement Failures, and Calls for Urgent Labour Sector Modernization
Kiran Raj
“One would be called an incorrigible fabulist if it were to be said that extortion is legitimate and practiced in a civilized society,” observed Justice Devan Ramachandran while categorically declaring the demand for “Nokku Kooli” (Gawking Charges) illegal and unconstitutional. The Kerala High Court Single Bench held that such practices constitute extortion under the Indian Penal Code and directed State authorities to initiate criminal proceedings following a preliminary enquiry into complaints.
The Court noted, “It is common, admitted and irrefutable knowledge – forcing this Court to have taken judicial notice of it – that it is being practiced, as if it is a matter of entitlement, by various trade Unions and its members.”
The Court observed the longstanding inefficacy of enforcement efforts, despite repeated government orders banning the practice. It mandated that criminal cases under Sections 383, 503, and 149 IPC be registered without delay upon confirmation of genuine complaints and that investigations must be completed and charge sheets filed with utmost priority.
The petitioner, T.K. Sundaresan, submitted that though he was willing to engage registered workers through the Welfare Board’s Pool, political disputes between factions of two trade unions obstructed lawful worker allotment. As a result, he was compelled to pay “Nokku Kooli” to both factions to proceed with his business activities.
The respondents included the District Police Chief, Kollam Rural; the Station House Officer, Anchal Police Station; union members from C.I.T.U. and I.N.T.U.C.; as well as the Director General of Police, the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board, and the Additional Chief Secretary (Labour and Skills), Government of Kerala.
The Government cited Circular No.7/2012 dated 26.03.2012 from the State Police Chief, categorizing such demands as offences under Sections 383, 503, and 149 IPC. The Advisory Memorandum dated 14.10.2016 reinforced these directions, followed by G.O.(Rt)No.511/2018/Labour dated 30.04.2018, which explicitly prohibited payment for work not performed. However, enforcement remained weak.
The Court recorded, “Unfortunately, nothing really changed at the ground level and the demands for ‘Nokku Kooli’ continued unabated.”
The Court was informed that eleven criminal cases had been registered between 2018 and the present matter, specifically: Thiruvananthapuram Rural (1), Kollam City (1), Alappuzha (1), Kottayam (1), Idukki (1), Ernakulam Rural (2), Palakkad (1), Kozhikode City (2), and Wayanad (1).
Justice Ramachandran provided a detailed historical context, recording that the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978, was enacted to protect informal sector workers from exploitation. However, it inadvertently contributed to the rise of practices like “Nokku Kooli.” Mechanization later aggravated the issue by diminishing legitimate employment opportunities for manual labourers.
The Court examined the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, in depth, noting that Clauses 21 to 24 regulate the deployment of workers via the Welfare Board’s Pool system. The Court stated, “No Union or a ‘Headload Worker’ can demand any wages directly from the employer or contractor.” The Court also noted that Clause 24 mandates that all wages be disbursed through the Pool Committee, not directly to workers.
However, the Court found that the ineffective implementation of these regulatory clauses facilitated the continuation of unlawful wage demands. “When there is a statutory mechanism, then both sides are bound to comply with the same,” it stated.
The Court criticized both employers and workers for failing to follow established statutory remedies under the Act, including conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Officer. The Court recorded, “The irony of what we see now commonly is that, for enforcement of their statutory rights, the parties break the law.”
Justice Ramachandran noted the physical harm suffered by workers in the industry. The Court stated, “The carrying of heavy loads of 55 kgs or more by any person on his head or body on a regular basis would cause irreversible musculoskeletal and cervical spine issues,” clarifying this was illustrative of the general health risks involved.
The Court cited Welfare Board records revealing grave physical injuries sustained by workers. The documented injuries included cardiac issues, heart attacks, fractures resulting from falls and accidents, as well as severe cervical spine compressions caused by load-bearing work. The Court noted, “The information perspicuously shows that most of the victims suffered from cardiac issues, including heart attacks, fractures on account of falls and accidents and spinal injuries, exacerbated by instances of the load slipping and handled inattentively.”
Justice Ramachandran issued a direct recommendation to the Government and Welfare Board to modernize the sector, stating, “The time has come to modernize the industry, so that all those registered workers, whose livelihood depends on the work of loading and unloading, must be given requisite technological and mechanical assistance, which would obviate their physical trauma.”
The Court explicitly called for transitioning the sector from purely manual labour to a more mechanized and scientifically managed system. It noted that “The Government must now consider the modernization of the work force, as also the ‘Act’, by transforming the ‘Headload Workers’ into ‘Loading and Unloading Workers’, without confining them to Manual Labour alone.”
Justice Ramachandran stated the urgency of legislative reforms and observed that the Government must act without delay. The Court directed that the proposed amendments reflected in Ext.R9(f) be expedited to grant the Welfare Board the authority to penalize and expel workers engaging in unlawful demands.
The Court recorded, “The ball is now in the court of the Government, to come out with a concrete proposal before this Court as to the manner in which the disputes will have to be averted, dealt with and resolved in terms of the Act.”
The Court directed that any complaint concerning “Nokku Kooli” must first undergo a preliminary enquiry and, if found genuine, must result in the registration of an FIR under Sections 383, 503, and 149 IPC. The Court mandated, “Such cases shall be investigated and charge sheeted with top priority.”
The Court directed that affected parties could also report complaints via the Labour Commissioner’s call centre (155215) or the toll-free number (1800 425 55214). The Court ordered, “Jurisdictional Assistant Labour Officers, Deputy Labour Officers and District Labour Officers will intervene as is necessary, including for recovery and return of any excess demand made.”
The Court directed the Welfare Board to enforce Clauses 21 to 24 of the Scheme strictly to prevent direct illegal demands from workers to employers.
Finally, the Court made it clear that its orders were “in rem,” applying across Kerala, and explicitly granted liberty for individuals and entities to approach the Court again through appropriate proceedings if complaints were not adequately addressed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Manoj Ramaswamy, Jolima George, Jisha Sasi, C.B. Sabeela, Chinnu Rose Mary Thomas.
For the Respondents: E.C. Bineesh (Government Pleader), S. Sreekumar, Siju Kamalasanan.
Case Title: T.K. Sundaresan v. District Police Chief, Kollam Rural & Others
Neutral Citation: 2021 (6) KHC 648
Case Number: WP(C) No. 17866 of 2021
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran
[Read/Download order]
