Kerala High Court
Antony Shan vs The Assistant Labour Officer on 23 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.4614 OF 2021(B)
PETITIONER/S:
1 ANTONY SHAN,
AGED 34 YEARS,
SON OF JOSEPH.V.G., VALLANASSERY HOUSE, PALLATH ROAD,
THAMMANAM, KARNAKUDAM, KOCHI-682 032.
2 FAIZAL AHAMED,
AGED 44 YEARS,
SON OF T.K.MUHAMMED, THARAYANKANDATHIL HOUSE,
MUTHOOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 101.
3 JYOTHISH.E.S.,
AGED 27 YEARS,
SON OF E.K.SUKUMARAN, ELAMPLAKKATTU, KOOTTAR,
KARUNAPURAM, IDUKKI-685 552.
4 MANUKUTTAN.O.,
AGED 26 YEARS,
SON OF OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI, PEROORKIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU,
THEVELAPPURAM P.O., PUTHUR, KOLLAM-691 507.
5 VISHNU.A.V.,
AGED 25 YEARS,
SON OF A.S.VISWAN, ARACKAL HOUSE, CHAMPAKULAM P.O.,
NADUBHAGOM, ALAPPUZHA-688 505.
6 KLEMEN BAGUWAR,
AGED 32 YEARS,
SON OF URBANUS BAGHUWAR, BALIPUKHURI VILLAGE,
DHEKIAJULI P.S., SIRAJULI P.O., DHEKIAJULI, SONIPUR,
ASSAM-784 110.
7 MARKISH BAGUWAR,
AGED 32 YEARS,
SON OF ISTIPHAN BAGHUWAR, GARMRA MAIT KHINDI
SANITPUR, GARMARA PATHAR GAON, UDALGURI,
ASSAM-785 110.
8 JAMES GURIA,
AGED 29 YEARS,
SON OF JOHAN GURIA, SINGITOLL, SONIPTPUR, NO.1 BAMUN
PUKHUH, UDAL GURU, KHALIHAMARI,
WP(C).No.4614 OF 2021
2
ASSAM-784 026.
9 MASHIDAS SORENG,
AGED 33 YEARS,
SON OF RUYAL SORENG, NAHARBARI, BARGALI VILLAGE,
MAJ ROWMARI P.O., DHEKIAJULI P.S., MAJROUMARI
BANGALI, GAON, UDALGURI, ASSAM-784 117.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
SRI.P.S.GIREESH
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
SHRI.DR.ABHILASH O.U.
SHRI.SALIH P.A.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE, MINI CIVIL
STATION, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542.
2 MYWAREHOUSE ONLINE SALES LLP,
16/302B AND C, AMBALAPPADY, KUNNATHUAND,
PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-683 565, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, NIYAS AHAMMED KOYA.
3 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
PUTHENCRUZ, SUB OFFICE, ATHICKUZHIYIL BUILDING
NO.8/234, CHURCH ROAD,
PUTHENCRUZ P.O., PIN-682 308.
R1 BY GP- SMT. POOJA SURENDRAN,
R3 BY SC,KHWWFB-SRI. S.KRISHAMOORTHY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4614 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of February 2021
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. He
submits that the petitioners are workers of the 2 nd
respondent establishment and they had filed the
applications at Exts.P1 to P9 for registration as
Head Load Workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala
Headload Workers Rules 1981. According to learned
Counsel for the petitioners, those applications are
not being considered by the respondents and
therefore, the respondents be directed to dispose of
those applications in a reasonable time limit.
2. The petition as framed and filed, to my mind,
is totally misconceived and abuse of the process of
law. Exts.P1 to P9 are the applications under Rule
26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rule 1981. Those
are filed on 16.02.2021, and the present petition is
filed immediately on 22.02.2021. The authority under
the Rules is not even granted a breathing time to
WP(C).No.4614 OF 2021
consider those applications, by the petitioners. The
petition is totally a premature petition, in the wake
of provisions of Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload
Workers Rules, 1981. This Rule enjoins the
registering authority to issue notices of such
applications to the employer or contractors from whom
the Head Load Workers can claim work and in area
where the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of
Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, is in
operation. Notice is also required to be issued to
the Chairman, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board
Local Committee in such areas. By issuing such
notices, the registering authority is required to
invite objections on such applications. Thereafter,
the registering authority, on receipt of such
objections, is required to give an opportunity of
being heard to all the parties and then such
applications are required to be decided.
3. Pleadings in this petition are totally silent
as to what steps are taken by the petitioners to
ascertain the progress of their applications from the
WP(C).No.4614 OF 2021
date of filing, i.e., on 16.02.2021. As stated in
the foregoing paragraph, the registering authority
has to invite objections by issuing notices to
various authorities and persons prior to deciding
such applications for registration. Within seven
days of filing of such applications, the petitioners
cannot move this Court with an apprehension that
their applications are not being considered by the
registering authority.
In the light of the foregoing reasons, the
petition is dismissed with cost.
Sd/-
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE
uu
23.2.2021
WP(C).No.4614 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM IX DATED
16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM IX DATED
16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER TO
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM IX DATED
16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM IX DATED
16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY 4TH PETITIONER TO
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM IX DATED
16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY 5TH PETITIONER TO
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM IX DATED
16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY 6TH PETITIONER TO
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM IX DATED
16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY 7TH PETITIONER TO
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM IX DATED
16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY 8TH PETITIONER TO
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM IX DATED
16.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY 9TH PETITIONER TO
1ST RESPONDENT.
