[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rani Polymers vs The District Labour Officer on 1 December, 2025
2025:KER:92778
W.P (C) No.7999/2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 RANI POLYMERS
SY-323PT & 324 PT, NIDA, A2 ROAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
N.A.GOPAKUMAR, S/O N.M.ASOKAN, NAKKARA
HOUSE,POTTA.P.O.,CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN -
678621
2 SUMAN PANDEY
(HEADLOAD WORKER, RANI POLYMERS) GRAM.P.O, BHAKURA
THANA,THARARI,BHOJPUR,BIHAR., PIN - 802205
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.R.RAJAN
SHRI.SATHEESH I.R.
SHRI.ANOOJ.J
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678001
2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678001
3 THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMMITTEE
1ST FLOOR, M.A.COMPLEX, OPP KSEB OFFICE,T.B.ROAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
4 VELAYUDHAN
POOL NO 17 LEADER, CHEROVTTUVELLY, POEWR GIRD ROAD,
VENGODI P.O ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678622
2025:KER:92778
W.P (C) No.7999/2025 -2-
BY ADV SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2025, THE COURT ON 01.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:92778
W.P (C) No.7999/2025 -3-
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order of the 2 nd
respondent rejecting an application filed by the 2nd petitioner for registration
under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the 1981 Rules') and Ext.P6 order of the 1 st respondent
confirming the order of the 2nd respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2 nd
petitioner was engaged for the purpose of loading and unloading work in the
1st petitioner establishment. It is submitted that the 2 nd petitioner is a native of
Bihar. It is submitted that a statement was recorded from the 2 nd petitioner by
the 2nd respondent which has been relied on to establish that the 2 nd petitioner
was not engaged in loading and unloading works. It is submitted that before
the Appellate Authority, namely the 1st respondent, statements were given
indicating that the 2nd petitioner was actually engaging in loading and
unloading work and pointing out that the earlier statement recorded by the
2nd respondent was on account of the fact that the 2nd petitioner was not
conversant with the Malayalam language. It is submitted that the Appellate
Authority has rejected the claim for registration on the ground that the 2 nd
petitioner was engaged as helper. It is submitted that mere nomenclature
given to the post held by the 2 nd petitioner cannot result in a conclusion that
he was not engaged for loading and unloading work. It is submitted that the
2025:KER:92778
reason stated by the authorities that the grant of registration will affect pool
workers cannot be sustained in law.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent submits that
there were obvious discrepancies in the claim made by the 2 nd petitioner. It is
submitted that while the 2nd petitioner claims to have been engaged by the 1 st
petitioner from the year 2022, going by the application the 1 st petitioner, it
commenced commercial activities only in the year 2023. It is submitted that
the 2nd petitioner was clearly engaged as helper and that the Accountant of the
1st petitioner establishment also confirmed by giving a statement that the 2 nd
petitioner was not engaged in any loading and unloading activities.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in reply, that
the 2nd petitioner was also engaged at the time of construction activities and
that is why it is shown that he was engaged from the year 2022, while
commercial operations in the 1 st petitioner establishment commenced only in
the year 2023. It is submitted that the Accountant of the 1 st petitioner
establishment has also given statement before the Appellate Authority stating
that the 2nd petitioner was engaged for loading and unloading work.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader
for respondents 1 and 2, I am of the view that the matter can be directed to be
reconsidered by the 2nd respondent as at least one of the reasons stated by the
2025:KER:92778
authorities for rejecting the registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules is
that the grant of registration will affect pool workers. Going by the law laid
down by this court in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v.
Nishad; 2022 (5) KLT 188, the said reason cannot be sustained in law.
That apart the statements relied upon by the original authority (2 nd
respondent) have been withdrawn at the appellate stage. Therefore, it would
only be appropriate that the matter be reconsidered by the 2 nd respondent.
Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P6 orders are set aside and the application filed by
the 2nd petitioner for registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules will stand
restored to the file of the 2 nd respondent who shall reconsider the said
application afresh and pass orders after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matter and the orders have been set aside only for reasons
indicated above. Fresh orders shall be passed within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
2025:KER:92778
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 7999 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION
DATED 23/5/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION
DATED 23/5/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE THEGARIRAM
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION
DATED 23/5/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE RAUSHANKUMAR
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO H.L 34-36/2023
DATED 1/1/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 29/5/2024
FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE APPEAL
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO C-561/2024 DATED
29/6/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
