Ali Hussain vs The District Labour Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 2751 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
     FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 7443 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

    1     ALI HUSSAIN, AGED 29 YEARS
          SON OF OSIMUDDIN, UNNEKURI, CHUKRUNGBARI, JALAH,
          UNNEKURI, BARPETA, ASSAM 781 315.

    2     TALEB MANDAL, AGED 32 YEARS
          SON OF KHALILUR RAHMAN, BAGURIGURI GAON,
          CHUKRUNGBARI P.O.BOGRIGURI, GAON,
          BARPETA, ASSAM 781 317

    3     KAMAL HUSSAIN, AGED 30 YEARS
          SON OF SONA MOAH AKANDA, CHUNBARI GAON,
          BARPETA, ASSAM-781 317

    4     GOVINDAN M.V, AGED 57 YEARS
          SON OF KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SREENILAYAM,
          PAYANCHERY, P.O.VIKAS NAGAR, KEEZHUR,
          IRITTY, KANNUR-670 703

    5     OASIS BUILDMART,
          19TH MILE, CHAVASSERY, CHAVASSERY P.O.
          KANNUR-670 702, KANNUR DISTRICT,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SHANAVAS C.H.

          BY ADVS.
          B.ASHOK SHENOY
          P.S.GIREESH
          ARJUN R NAIK



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
          THAVAKKARA, KANNUR-670 002

    2     THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, IRITTY ROAD,
          NERAMBOKKU, IRITTY-670 703
 WP(C) NO. 7443 OF 2022               ..2..



    3          KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
               KANNUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD,
               KANNUR-670 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

               BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM
               BY ADV.JUSTIN JACOB, SR.GP




        THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   11.03.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 7443 OF 2022          ..3..

                         JUDGMENT

The 5th petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in

the business of sale of hardwares and electrical goods at

Chavassery, Kannur. The petitioners 1 to 4 are the

attached headload workers employed exclusively for the

petitioner's establishment for carrying out loading and

unloading work. Being attached headload workers under

the 5th petitioner establishment, the petitioners 1 to 4

submitted individual applications for registration as

headload workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload

Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Rules'). Pursuant to the said application, petitioners 1 to 4

and the 3rd respondent were heard and the 2 nd respondent

by Exts.P1 to P4 orders rejected the application of the

petitioners 1 to 4 stating that, if the petitioners 1 to 4 are

issued with identity cards, that would affect the

employment opportunities of other headload workers in

the area.

WP(C) NO. 7443 OF 2022 ..4..

2. The petitioners 1 to 4 challenged Exts.P1 to P4

orders before the 1st respondent Appellate Authority and

the 1st respondent by Ext.P5 order confirmed the orders

passed by the 2nd respondent reiterating the reason that, if

the petitioners 1 to 4 are given identity cards that would

affect the employment opportunities of others in the

locality. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P4 and P5, the petitioners

have approached this Court.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

learned Standing Counsel for the Board and the learned

Government Pleader.

4. This Court in Brijesh John and Others v.

Assistant Labour Officer and Others [2022 (1) KHC

58] has held that orders issued by the Registering

Authority, as well as the Appellate Authority rejecting

the application on the ground that issuance of new

identity cards would affect the livelihood of others is not

a valid reason in the eyes of law. The reduction of WP(C) NO. 7443 OF 2022 ..5..

income or job opportunities for existing headload

workers is not at all a ground under law for denying

registration to workers who are willing to do loading

and unloading works.

5. In the light of the above, I find that reduction of

employment or the objection by the 3rd respondent

cannot merit any consideration in considering the

application of attached headload workers in the

establishment for issuance of identity cards.

Accordingly, Exts.P1 to P4 and P5 are set aside. The 2 nd

respondent shall issue identity cards to the petitioners 1

to 4, in case their applications are otherwise in order.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

                          MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
                                  JUDGE
SB/11/03/2022
 WP(C) NO. 7443 OF 2022       ..6..

               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7443/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO 2/2020(2) DATED 6.9.2021 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO 2/2020(3) DATED 6.9.2021 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO 2/2020(1) DATED 6.9.2021 PASSED BY 22ND RESPONDENT AND ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO 2/2020(40 DATED 6.9.2021 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO G(3) 4153/2021 DATED 30.12.2021 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AND ISSUED TO PETITIONERS ALONG WITH ITS RUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 1.6.2021 IN WPC NO 11654 OF 2021 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT