Poonkumoodu Aji vs The District Labour Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 1250 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
      FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 2892 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

1         POONKUMOODU AJI,AGED 45 YEARS
          S/O SASI, SAFALYM, POONKUMOODY, VENKODE PO
          VATTAPPARA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

2         RENJITH KUMAR, S/O KARUNAKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS
          RENJITH BHAVAN, CHUTTUKADUMUKAL, POOVATHOOR PO
          NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

          BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN



RESPONDENT/S:

1         THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
          DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

2         ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, NEDUMANGAD
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541

3         KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD DISTRICT
          OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 REPRESENTED BY
          DISTRICT OFFICER

          R BY SR.GP SRI. JUSTINE JACOB


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 2892 OF 2022      ..2..




                     JUDGMENT

The petitioners are President and Secretary of

Poovathoor unit of Thiruvananthapuram District Head

Load Workers Congress (INTUC (I)). Aggrieved by the

steps taken by the 2nd respondent to issue identity cards

to unknown third parties without considering the need

and requirement of headload workers in the area, the

petitioners had submitted Ext.P1 representation before

the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioners, there is

no sufficient work even to the existing headload workers

because of the use of mechanised method of loading and

unloading and engagement of own workers by the

employers. The grievance of the petitioners is that

without considering Ext.P1 representation submitted by

the petitioners, the 2nd respondent is taking steps to

issue identity cards to new applicants. The case of the WP(C) NO. 2892 OF 2022 ..3..

petitioners is that, if new identity cards are issued

without considering the employment opportunities in the

area, there will be reduction in work for existing

headload workers and the same would be violative of

their fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21 of the

Constitution.

2. This Court in Brijesh John and Others v.

Assistant Labour Officer and Others [2022(1) KHC

58] has held that, the reduction of income or job

opportunities for existing headload workers is not a

ground for denying registration of new applicants who

submits application under Rule 26A of the Kerala

Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to

as 'the Rules' for short). Further, Ext.P1 is an omnibus

representation submitted by the petitioners without

reference to any individual applications filed under Rule

26A.

WP(C) NO. 2892 OF 2022 ..4..

In the light of the decision of this Court in Brijesh

John (supra), the grievance raised by the petitioners in

Ext.P1 representation as well in this writ petition cannot

sustain. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, I make it clear that this judgment will not

stand in the way of the petitioners preferring any

objection to individual applications submitted by any

person under Rule 26A.

Sd/-

                             MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,
                                       JUDGE

SB/28/01/2022
 WP(C) NO. 2892 OF 2022      ..5..




                         APPENDIX


PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 16.12.2021 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.12.2021 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION.