Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court addressed a crisis in the state’s toddy industry caused by the scarcity of experienced toddy tappers. This shortage led to the introduction of Clause 33A in the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund (Amendment) Scheme 2021, which allows toddy tappers, who retired before reaching the age of superannuation due to illness, to re-enter the welfare fund scheme upon presenting medical certificates. However, the clause does not extend the same re-entry provision to toddy workers involved in other aspects of the industry, such as transport, storage, or the sale of toddy.

The case arose when a petitioner, a former toddy tapper turned toddy worker, challenged the constitutionality of Clause 33A, which excludes toddy workers from the re-entry provision. The petitioner argued that the clause violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, as both toddy tappers and toddy workers are integral to the industry. However, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice N. Nagaresh, ultimately rejected the petition, ruling that the unique and hazardous nature of toddy tapping justified the special treatment extended to toddy tappers. The court emphasized that the scarcity of skilled toddy tappers in the state was a key reason for the policy decision to allow their re-entry into the welfare fund.

Factual Background:

The petitioner in this case was initially a toddy tapper and a member of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund. He paid subscriptions to the welfare fund until 2004, when he suffered an accident resulting in a temporary disability, forcing him to stop working as a toddy tapper. During his incapacity, he received welfare fund benefits. After recovering, the petitioner rejoined the toddy industry, this time as a toddy worker in a toddy shop, and resumed contributions to the welfare fund from 2004 to 2016.

In 2016, the petitioner was informed by the welfare fund board that he could no longer be a member of the welfare fund since he had already retired and received benefits. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that he had continued making contributions after 2004 and that the welfare fund board had accepted his payments for 12 years without objection. He claimed that the denial of his membership and benefits was unjust and discriminatory, especially since Clause 33A allowed re-entry for toddy tappers but not for toddy workers.

The petitioner’s case was dismissed by both the trial court and the appellate court, which upheld the welfare fund board’s decision. However, the petitioner persisted, eventually filing a writ petition with the Kerala High Court seeking readmission to the welfare fund and challenging the constitutionality of Clause 33A.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Advocates V. M. Krishnakumar and P. S. Sidharthan, representing the petitioner, argued that Clause 33A of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme was unconstitutional because it denied re-entry to toddy workers. The petitioner contended that excluding toddy workers from re-entry was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law. He argued that toddy workers play a vital role in the toddy industry, alongside toddy tappers, by handling the transport, storage, and sale of toddy. Therefore, they should not be treated differently.

The petitioner also argued that he had made consistent contributions to the welfare fund for over a decade after returning to work as a toddy shop worker. He highlighted that the welfare fund board had accepted these contributions without any objections and should not now deny him the benefits of the fund.

Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the reasoning behind Clause 33A, stating that if re-entry was allowed for toddy tappers who retired due to illness, the same consideration should be extended to toddy workers. He argued that the clause was arbitrary and irrational in distinguishing between toddy tappers and toddy workers.

Respondents’ Arguments:

Representing the state and the welfare fund board, Additional Advocate General Asok M. Cherian and Government Pleader Sabeena P. Ismail, along with Standing Counsel Renil Anto Kandamkulathy, defended the policy outlined in Clause 33A. They argued that the clause was introduced specifically to address the acute shortage of skilled toddy tappers in the state. They contended that toddy tapping is a physically demanding and hazardous job, requiring workers to climb at least 10 coconut trees per day, a task most young people in Kerala are increasingly unwilling to undertake.

The respondents emphasized that the inclusion of Clause 33A in the 2021 amendment was a deliberate policy decision aimed at allowing experienced toddy tappers who retired due to prolonged illness to re-enter the workforce. This was necessary to address the labor crisis in the toddy industry, which was struggling due to a lack of skilled workers. They further argued that Clause 33A did not violate Article 14, as toddy tappers and toddy workers perform fundamentally different jobs, with toddy tapping being significantly more hazardous than other tasks in the industry.

The respondents also argued that the petitioner’s challenge to Clause 33A was unwarranted, as the policy decision was made in response to a specific problem facing the industry. They maintained that the exclusion of toddy workers from the re-entry provision was based on valid and reasonable distinctions between the two categories of workers.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

After carefully considering the arguments, the Kerala High Court upheld the constitutionality of Clause 33A and rejected the petitioner’s plea for re-entry into the welfare fund. Justice N. Nagaresh noted that the primary reason for the introduction of Clause 33A was the shortage of experienced and skilled toddy tappers in the state. The court observed that toddy tapping is a hazardous activity, requiring physical strength and experience, and that young people are increasingly avoiding this line of work due to the associated dangers.

The court acknowledged that toddy tappers and toddy workers are both integral to the toddy industry but maintained that the hazardous nature of toddy tapping justified the special treatment extended to toddy tappers under the welfare fund scheme. The court stated that it was not discriminatory to treat toddy tappers differently from toddy workers, as the two groups perform distinct roles within the industry. Toddy tappers, the court pointed out, face significantly greater risks compared to toddy workers involved in transport, storage, or sales.

Justice Nagaresh emphasized that the crisis in the toddy industry, caused by the scarcity of skilled toddy tappers, was a critical factor in the decision to allow their re-entry into the welfare fund. The court further noted that the welfare fund scheme was designed to provide financial security to toddy tappers who, due to illness or physical incapacity, had been forced to retire before reaching the age of superannuation. The decision to extend re-entry privileges to toddy tappers but not toddy workers was based on the unique challenges faced by the toddy tapping profession.

While rejecting the petitioner’s challenge to Clause 33A, the court expressed sympathy for his situation. The court noted that the petitioner had continued contributing to the welfare fund for over 12 years after his accident, and these contributions had been accepted by the welfare fund board without any objections. Therefore, the court ruled that the respondents could not now deny the petitioner the benefits of the welfare fund after collecting his subscriptions for such an extended period.

In conclusion, while upholding the validity of Clause 33A, the court ordered that the petitioner be readmitted to the welfare fund and be entitled to receive the benefits of the scheme from the date he resumed work as a toddy shop worker.