[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Baiju Mohan vs Assistant Labour Officer on 26 February, 2026
2026:KER:17276
WP(C) NO. 7233 OF 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7233 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
1 BAIJU MOHAN,AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. G. MOHANAN, BSV BHAVANAM, THAZHAM SOUTH,
CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691572
2 SIVAKUMAR R.,AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. REGHU, SIVA RANJINI, ANAKKOTTOOR P.O.,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691536
3 MOHAMMED ASLAM,AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. FAZILUDEEN, AZAR MANZIL, KLAVARA, OYOOR P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691562
4 AZARUDHEEN F.S.,AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. FAZILUDEEN, AZAR MANZIL, KLAVARA, OYOOR P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691536
5 BABU MATHEW,AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, KATTUPPURATHU, EDANAD P.O.,
KARAMCODE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691565
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.S.MANILAL
SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PARAVOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
2026:KER:17276
WP(C) NO. 7233 OF 2026 2
2 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
3 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
SUB OFFICE, CHATHANNOOR,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KHLWWFB,
CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691572
4 FAZALUDEEN,
PROPRIETOR, A.M GLASS HOUSE, CHATHANNOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691572
SRI. K.SIJU (FOR RESP),
SMT. RESMI THOMAS (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:17276
WP(C) NO. 7233 OF 2026 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners claim to be permanent workers of the
4th respondent. They are aggrieved by the fact that their
application for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala
Headload workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules') has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that initially the Original Authority passed Exhibit P6
order, which was set aside by the Appellate Authority by
Exhibit P8 order. It is submitted that, after remand, the
Original Authority has again passed the very same order
rejecting the application for registration on the ground that
the grant of registration might affect the pool workers in the
area.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3 rd
respondent Board submits that the order of the Original
Authority, which is presently impugned in the writ petition
(namely Exhibit P10) would indicate that while one of the
reasons stated is that the grant of registration would affect
the pool workers in the area, there are other reasons also, for
which the application for registration has been rejected. It is
2026:KER:17276
submitted that, the petitioners have an effective alternative
remedy against Exhibit P10 and no ground is made out for
interference with Exhibit P10 in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India notwithstanding the availability of an
alternative remedy.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing
for the official respondents and the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent Board, I am of the opinion
that this writ petition can be disposed of without notice to the
4th respondent as no orders to the prejudice of the 4 th
respondent is being issued by this Court.
5. It is clear from the judgment of a Division Bench of
this Court Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board
V. Nishad; 2022 (5) KLT 188 that the possibility of the
work being done by the pool workers in a particular area
being affected is not a ground to reject an application for
registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. Since it is not
disputed before me that at least one of the reasons stated in
Exhibit P10 is that the grant of registration might affect the
headload workers in the area, I am inclined to set aside
2026:KER:17276
Exhibit P10 order notwithstanding the availability of any
alternative remedy
Accordingly, Exhibit P10 order is quashed. The
Original Authority (namely the 1st respondent) is directed to
reconsider the applications filed by the petitioners, also
keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in Nishad
(supra), as expeditiously as possible. I make it clear that I
have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter
and it will be open to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in
the matter, in accordance with the law, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to all affected
parties.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ajt
2026:KER:17276
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 7233 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 3.6.2025 ISSUED
BY THE CHATHANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.11.2022 ISSUED
BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
RENEWED FROM 3.1.2025 TILL 31.12.2025
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE E-CHELLAN DATED 3.1.2025 ISSUED
BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.2.2025
RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 24.2.2025
OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2025 OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 5.6.2025 FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2025 BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21899/2025
DATED 18/07/2025
Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2025
