Biju C.K vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21493 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943


                  WP(C) NO. 19700 OF 2020


PETITIONER:

          BIJU C.K
          AGED 42 YEARS
          S/O. KUTTIAKINI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. CEEKE
          MATERIALS, CHENOOLI ROAD, PERAMBRA,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT
          CHALAKARA HOUSE, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE
          DISTRICT.
          BY ADV BIMALA BABY


RESPONDENTS:

   1      STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
          DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
   2      THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
          CIVIL STATION, CALICUT-673 620
   3      THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND
          BOARD,
          SUB OFFICE, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 673 425
   4      THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
 W.P(C)No.19700 of 2020   2


         QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE 673 631
         BY ADV SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM



         SMT.SABEENA P.ISMAIL-GP



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON
21.10.2021, THE COURT ON 29.10.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C)No.19700 of 2020            3



                  BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                  ------------------------
                 WP(C) NO. 19700 of 2021
               --------------------------
          Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021


                            JUDGMENT

The writ petition seeks to quash order of the Assistant

Labour Officer declining registration for five of the permanent

employees of the petitioner as headload workers under Section 26A

of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978.

2. The area where petitioner's establishment situated is

admittedly not a scheme covered area. The application was

submitted by five permanent workers of the petitioner to get

registration as headload workers. A copy of application submitted by

the petitioner before the 4th respondent is produced as Ext.P4.

However, by order dated 22.01.2020, the 4th respondent rejected the

applications stated that the existing works of loading and unloading

in petitioner's establishment has been carried out by 21 headload

workers of the Headload Workers Welfare Board and that the

applicants were not carrying out any loading and unloading works in

the petitioner's establishment. Apart from that, reduction in the

income of the existing headload workers in the area due to recession

and that if registration is granted to further workers, the same will

prejudice the existing registered workers of the area.

3. Challenging the rejection, an appeal was preferred by

the petitioner before the second respondent and by order dated

28.05.2020, the appeal was allowed. The appeal was allowed on the

ground that employees of the petitioners were also engaged in

loading and unloading works along with the workers attached to the

Welfare Board. Since, the appellate authority observes that the

registration authority rejected the application without conducting

sufficient enquiry by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P7 order.

4. Specific to the remedy, registration authority once again

considered the application submitted by the employees of the

petitioner, however, by a writ petition of the same persons mentioned

in the original order which was set aside in appeal. The registration

authority once again rejected the application for registration. It was

repeated that the existing 21 headload workers of the Headload

Workers Welfare Board were finally initiated ... due to recession and

that if registration is granted to the employers of the petitioner, the

same will affect the 21 headload workers attached to the headload

workers Welfare Board.

5. This writ petition was filed on 22.09.2020. No counter

affidavits have been filed by the respondents.

6. I have heard Adv. Bima Baby the learned Counse for the

petitioner, Adv. Sabeena P. Ismail, the learned Government Pleader

for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Adv. Thomas Abraham, the

learned Standing counsel for third respondent.

7. On consideration of the contentions raised in this writ

petition, it can be seen that registration authority has clearly

assumed that the reduction in income of the existing headload

workers is the reason for refusing registration as headload workers.

Legally speaking, the said reason is not contemplated for rejection of

registration of the workers as headload workers for the reason that

the existing workers will be affected adversely or otherwise by the

grant of such a registration. In such circumstances, the order of the

4th respondent dated 04.09.2020 produced as Ext.P8 is liable to be

set aside.

8. Admittedly, the area where petitioner's establishment is

situated is not an area covered under the scheme under the Act.

However, an employer has a right to employ any person to do loading

and unloading works. Petitioner claims that workers in his

establishment expressed their willingness to do loading and

unloading works as evident from the separate applications, all of

which are produced as Ext.P4. There was no reason to the

registration authority to decline the registration. It is relevant to

notice that the appellate authority has, not withstanding the finding

that the applicants were all workers of the petitioner and offered that

they were already been engaged for doing loading and unloading

works in the petitioner's establishment along with workers attached

to the headload workers welfare board.

9. In the light of the said findings, the refusal of the

applications for registration as headload workers in Ext.P4 is patently

illegal and liable to be set aside.

Hence, while setting aside Ext.P8, I direct Ext.P4 to pass

fresh orders on Ext.P4 application submitted by the workers in the

petitioner's establishment within a period of 30 days from today and

grant registration as sought for and to issue the identity cards as

contemplated as law within the time stipulated above.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ/29.10.2021