Kerala High Court

Muneer V.K vs District Labour Officer, Kannur on 21 November, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                              2024:KER:87660




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                 WP(C) NO. 32444 OF 2024

PETITIONERS:

    1    MUNEER V.K
         AGED 51 YEARS
         S/O YUSUF K.V., RESIDING AT V.K. HOUSE,
         VENMANALMETTA, ANJARAKKANDY P.O.,
         PADUVILAYI, KANNUR, PIN - 670612

    2    BASHEER
         AGED 45 YEARS
         S/O VEERAN KUTTI, NO. 3/55,
         VELLACHAL, KONNACHAL, ERUMAD P.O.,
         TAMIL NADU, PIN - 643239

    3    MUHAMMED SHAFEEK M.M.
         AGED 30 YEARS
         RESIDING AT MADEENA MANZIL,
         PURATHEEL, VARAM P.O., KANNUR,
         PIN - 670594


         BY ADV NIRMAL V NAIR


RESPONDENTS:

    1    DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR
         O/O THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
         KANNUR, CIVIL STATION, SP OFFICE ROAD,
         THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
         KANNUR, PIN - 670002
                                            2024:KER:87660
WP(C) No.32444 of 2024
                           2



    2    ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
         KANNUR CIRCLE 1ST CIRCLE
         O/O THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
         KANNUR CIRCLE 1ST CIRCLE, CIVIL STATION,
         SP OFFICE ROAD, THAVAKKARA,
         CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670002

    3    KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD
         DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KANNUR,
         FOOD GRAINS BHAVAN BUILDING,
         2ND FLOOR, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD,
         JS PAUL JUNCTION, KANNUR P.O.,
         KANNUR, PIN - 670001

    4    M/S FALCON AGENCIES
         VARAM, KADAMGODE, VARAM P.O., KANNUR,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
         PIN - 670594


         BY ADVS.
         K.S.ARUN KUMAR-R3
         ENCIL K. SABU-R4
         SMT.MABLE C. KURIAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                     2024:KER:87660
WP(C) No.32444 of 2024
                                 3



                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of November, 2024

The petitioners, who are headload workers attached

to the 4th respondent-Establishment, are before this Court

aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 orders. By Ext.P4 order, their

applications for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala

Headload Workers Rules, 1981 have been rejected by the

Registering Authority. Their appeal preferred before the

Appellate Authority under Rule 26C also stands rejected as

per Ext.P5 order.

2. The petitioners state that the sole reason

advanced by the Registering Authority and the Appellate

Authority for rejection of their applications is that grant of

registration to the petitioners would adversely affect the pool

workers. The said contention cannot stand the scrutiny of law

in view of the judgment of this Court in Kerala 2024:KER:87660

Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad M.B. and others

[2022 (5) KLT 188] and in Prasad v. State of Kerala

[2024 KHC 528].

3. Standing Counsel entered appearance on

behalf of the 3rd respondent and resisted the writ petition. On

behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is submitted that the

4th respondent-Establishment is functioning in an area where

the Kerala Headload Workers Regulation of Employment and

Welfare Scheme is made operationalised. The 3 rd respondent

repeatedly required the 4th respondent to get it registered

under the Welfare Scheme. The 4 th respondent has been

consistently refusing to register the Establishment under the

Scheme.

4. The headload workers, who are registered

under the Scheme, have been approaching the 4 th respondent

expressing their willingness to carry out all the loading and

unloading of the 4th respondent as per agreed wages. But the 2024:KER:87660

4th respondent consistently refused to engage the registered

pool workers.

5. Standing Counsel further submitted that

there are ample pool workers available to do any loading and

unloading work in the notified area. If 26A Cards are issued

indiscriminately, that will adversely affect the income of the

registered headload workers. In such circumstances, Exts.P4

and P5 orders are perfectly legal and are not liable to be

interfered with on any of the grounds advanced by the

petitioners.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing

respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the 3rd respondent and the learned counsel appearing for

the 4th respondent.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have

submitted applications for registration under Rule 26A of the 2024:KER:87660

Kerala Headload Workers Rules. Their applications stand

rejected as per Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 order of the Registering

Authority would indicate that the Kerala Headload Workers

Welfare Board had objected to grant of 26A Cards to the

petitioners. Ext.P4 states that grant of registration would

adversely affect the local pool workers and therefore, the

applications stand rejected. Ext.P5 order of the Appellate

Authority also extends the same reason for rejection.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in the

judgment in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (supra)

held as follows:

"16. Our analysis of the statutory scheme leads us to draw the following conclusions:

h. When an application for registration is preferred by an attached worker, the enquiry by the registering authority must only be to ascertain whether the applicant is actually engaged in doing headload work in the establishment to which he is attached and if so, whether the headload work done by him is of predominant nature. The information in that regard can be gathered from the registers maintained by the employed in terms of Section 26 of the Act read with the Rules as also through a physical inspection at the premises of 2024:KER:87660

the establishment concerned. The registering authority cannot reject an application for registration on the ground that existing pool workers have raised objections to granting of such registrations. Unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration under Rule 26A to a worker who is attached to an establishment. It has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in Gangadharan (Supra). Their objections can only be raised at a time when an attached worker, who gets registered in terms of Rule 26A relinquishes his employment or engagement with the establishment to which he was attached, and then seeks to join the scheme in the area concerned, as a registered but unattached worker."

This Court again considered the issue in Prasad (supra) in

paragraph 10 of the judgment held as follows:

"10. The "Act" or the Scheme under it, do not provide for any protection to already registered Pool workers from further registration of other persons, but that it can only regulate the same, through the applicable methods and relevant criteria. Since the learned Senior Government Pleader also affirms that the "Act" does not provide for any such blanket protection, nevertheless, asserting that the detriment to the existing "Pool workers" must be taken into account, I am certain that this objection, by itself cannot be found favour with. This is because, even if there is the likelihood of any detriment to the existing "Pool workers", it is for the Authorities to regulate it in such apposite manner as sanctioned, but cannot refuse further registration, even of "attached workers" to establishments, in 2024:KER:87660

an omnibus fashion, since there is no legal prohibition to such effect."

The same is the view taken by this Court in the judgment in

Kumaran M. v. District Labour Officer, Kannur [2024 KHC

487]. This Court again in Shaji Joseph v. District Labour

Officer [2024 (5) KLT 855] held that marginal reduction of

income of the pool workers cannot be a reason for declining

26A registration to bona fide headload workers attached to

establishments and who desire registration under Rule 26A.

9. In view of the above, Exts.P4 and P5 orders

are set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the

applications for registration submitted by the petitioners and

take appropriate decision thereon within a period of one

month taking note of the afore observations.