Abdul Salam, Linkon Mandal and Rahul Molla v. State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.`** ## **`TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 9260 OF 2016`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 ABDUL SALAM AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. MYTHEENKUNJU, PROPRIETOR, BUILDERS POINT, PATHARAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.`** - **`2 LINKON MANDAL AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. YACHHUDDIN MONDAL, C/O. BUILDERS POINT, PATHARAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.`** - **`3 RAHUL MOLLA AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ESSAR MOLLA, BUILDERS POINT, PATHARAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.`** ``` BY ADV SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.`** - **`2 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER KOLLAM-691 001.`** - **`3 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001.`** - **`4 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND DISTRICT BOARD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHAMAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001.`** - **`5 HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS FEDERATION (UTUC) PATHARAM UNIT, PATHARAM P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 522, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.`** W.P.(C) No.9260/2016 **-:2:-** ``` 6NIZAR UTUC, UNION LEADER, UTUC, PATHARAM UNIT, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 512, RESIDING AT THUNDIL HOUSE, PATHARAM P.O., SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM-690 522. ``` ``` 7SHAMSUDHEEN UNION LEADER, UTUC, PATHARAM UNIT, SASTHAMCOTTA-690 512. ``` - **`8 SURESH KUMAR UNION LEADER, UTUC, PATHARAM UNIT, SASTHAMCOTTA-690 512.`** ``` 9SHAJI UNION LEADER, UTUC, PATHARAM UNIT, SASTHAMCOTTA-690 512. ``` - **`10 NAZEER UNION LEADER, UTUC, PATHARAM UNIT, SASTHAMCOTTA-690 512.`** ``` 11NOUFAL PANAMTHITTA KIZHAKKATHIL, KIDANGAYAM, SOORANADU NORTH, PATHARAM SOUTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 522. ``` ## **`12 SHARRIF`** ``` SHAMEER MANZIL, ERAVICHIRA, SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 522. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G SRI.C.S. AJITH PRAKASH, SC, KHWWB SRI.SIJU K., SC, KHWWB SRI.BINOY DAVIS-GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.9260/2016 ## **-:3:-** ## **J U D G M E N T** The 1[st] petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment known as ‘Builders Point’, which is engaged in the business of selling hardware items, paints, roofing items, plumbing items, steel, cement etc. The 2[nd] and 3[rd] petitioners are employees of the 1[st] petitioner, who have been issued with a registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1981 Rules’). They have also been issued with identity cards under the provisions of Rule 26A(3) of the 1981 Rules. Copies of the identity cards issued to petitioners 2 and 3 are on record as Exts.P1 and P2. 2. According to the petitioners, petitioners 2 and 3 are engaged in loading and unloading works in the proprietary concern of the 1[st] petitioner and their services are sufficient for handling the loading and unloading works in the said establishment. Respondents 6 to 12, who are unattached headload workers in the area, raised a claim W.P.(C) No.9260/2016 ## **-:4:-** that the registration granted to petitioners 2 and 3 under the 1981 Rules by the Assistant Labour Officer, Sasthamcotta is illegal. They filed an appeal before the District Labour Officer, Kollam, who is the Appellate Authority under Rule 26 C of the 1981 Rules. The Appellate Authority by Ext.P9 order dated 24-02-2016 set aside the registration granted to petitioners 2 and 3 finding as follows: " 716/15 ശാസ്‌താംകോട്ടഅസിസ്റ്റനറലേബർഓഫീസിലെ നമ്പർഫയൽപരിശശോധിച്ചതിൽ5.12.2015 വരെ സ്ഥാപനത്തിൽ യോ കയറ്റിറക നടത്തിയിരുന്ന അപ്പീൽ വാദികളെ കേൾക് യോ അവർക്കുണ്ടാകുന്നത തൊഴിൽനഷ്ടത്തെക്കുറിചചഅന്വേഷിക് ചെയ്യാതെയാണ് 09.12.2015 - തീയതിയിൽ രണ്ടും മൂന്നും എതിർകക്ഷികൾകകതിരിച്ചറിയൽകാർഡ്നൽകിയിട്ടുള്ളത്എന ബോധ്യപ്പെട്ടു. പ്രദേശത്തെ ഏറ്റവും പ്രധാനപ്പെട്ട വാണിജ്യ സ്ഥാപനമായബിൽഡേഴ്‌സ്പ പോയിന്റിലെജ ജോലിഇല്ലാതായതുമൂലം സ്ഥലത്തെചുമട്ടുത തൊഴിലാളികളായഅപ്പീൽവാദികൾകകവരുമാന മേഖലയായ ഈ നഷ്ടം ഉണ്ടായിട്ടുണട. ഗ്രാമീണ പ്രദേശത്തെ സാമാന്യംഭേദപ്പെട്ടടിസ്ഥാപനത്തിലെത തൊഴിൽനഷ്ടംചുമട്ടു തൊഴിൽമാത്രംആശ്രയിച്ചുജീവിക്കുന്നഅപ്പീൽവാദികളുടെ ജീവിത ചെലവിന് ആവശ്യമായ വരുമാനത്തിൽ കുറവുണ്ടാക്ുയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണട. അപ്പീൽ വാദികളെ ബാധിക്കുന്ന തീരുമാനം കൈ ക്കൊള്ളുന്ന വേളയിൽ അവരെ കേൾക് യോ അവരുടെ ## W.P.(C) No.9260/2016 ## **-:5:-** തൊഴിൽ ബോദ നഷ്ടത്തെക്കുറിച അന്വേഷിച ധപ്പെടുകയയോ ചെയ്യാതെ 9.12.2015 -ൽ ശാസ്‌താംകോട്ടഅസിസ്റ്റനറലേബർ ഓഫീസർ കൈ ക്കൊണ്ട തീരുമാനം സാമാന്യ നീതിക നിരക്കാത് ാണ്. ആയതിനാൽ9.12.2015 തീയതിയിലെ ശാസ്താംകോട്ടഅസിസ്റ്റന ലേബർ 716/2015-ആം ഓഫീസറുടെ നമ്പർ ഉത്തരവ് അസ്ഥിരപ്പെടുത്തിയുംരണ്ടുംമൂന്നുംഎതിർകക്ഷികൾക 1978-ലെ എ) ചുമട്ടുത തൊഴിലാളിനിയമവുംചട്ടങ്ങളുംചട്ടം26( പ്രകാരം നൽകിയരജിസ്‌ട്രേഷനുംതിരിച്ചറിയൽകാർഡുംഅസാധുവാക്കിയും ഇതിനാൽഉത്തരവാകുന്നു. ഉത്തരവ്കൈപ്പറ്റുന്നതീയതിമുതൽ രണ്ടും മൂന്നും എതിർകക്ഷികളെ ഒന്നാം എതിർ കക്ഷിയുടെ ഉടമസ്ഥതയിലുള്ളബിൽഡേഴ്‌സ്പ പോയിനറഎന്നസ്ഥാപനത്തിലെ കയറ്റിറകകജജോലികളിൽനിന്നുംഒഴിവാക്കേണ്ടതാണ്.” It is challenging Ext.P9 order of the District Labour Officer, Kollam, that this writ petition has been filed. 3. When this matter was taken up for consideration on earlier occasion, it was the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no basis for cancelling the registration granted to petitioners 2 and 3, as, at the relevant time, the area was not even an area covered by the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (hereinafter ## W.P.(C) No.9260/2016 ## **-:6:-** referred to as the ‘Scheme’). Therefore, the party respondents had no right to claim that they should be engaged for loading and unloading work. It is submitted that going by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in **Sureshkumar R. and Others v. District Labour Officer,** **Tvm. And Others;** 2021 (2) KHC 215, even in the case of Scheme covered areas no unattached worker who has a registration under Rule 6A of the Scheme has a right to participate in an enquiry contemplated under Rule 26 A of the 1981 Rules for registration of attached workers and they could only be represented by the Local Committee before the Registering Authority. It is submitted that the finding in Ext.P9 that registration was granted without hearing the party respondents cannot be a reason to cancel the registration granted to petitioners 2 and 3. It is submitted that in such circumstances, Ex.P9 order is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent would submit that though at the relevant ## W.P.(C) No.9260/2016 ## **-:7:-** time when Ext.P9 order was passed, the area was not a Scheme covered area, the area is now a Scheme covered area (with effect from 18-09-2017). It is submitted that the question as to whether the petitioners 2 and 3 are engaged primarily in loading and unloading works is a matter to be determined by the competent authority before registration is granted under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules. It is submitted that such an enquiry has not been conducted in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 12 would also support the contentions taken by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent and would submit that the registration was granted without considering the issues that are required to be considered by the Registering Authority. It is submitted that since the area is presently a Scheme covered area, the claim of the party respondents is to be duly considered by the authorities before granting registration to petitioners 2 and 3. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. W.P.(C) No.9260/2016 ## **-:8:-** Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 12, I am of the view that Ext.P9 order cannot be sustained in law. The reasons that compelled the District Labour Officer to cancel the registration granted to petitioners 2 and 3 do not appear to be sustainable. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority that granting registration to attached workers and restricting the right of headload workers to load and unload materials in a prosperous business establishment will cause great prejudice to the headload workers at the area does not appear to be a reason which would enable the Appellate Authority to cancel the registration granted to petitioners 2 and 3. As held by this Court in **Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad;** 2022 (5) KLT 188, the only consideration while granting registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules would be as to whether the work done by the petitioners 2 and 3 was predominantly loading and W.P.(C) No.9260/2016 ## **-:9:-** unloading work. The other reason stated for setting aside the registration granted to petitioners 2 and 3 in Ext.P9 is that the party respondents were not heard before registration was granted. It is clear from the Full Bench judgment of this Court in **Sureshkumar R. and Others (Supra)** that unattached individual headload workers have no right to be heard while an application for registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules is considered by the competent authority. That apart, in the facts of the present case, at the time when Ext.P9 order was passed, the area in question was not a Scheme covered area. For all these reasons, Ext.P9 order is quashed. **Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE** ats ## W.P.(C) No.9260/2016 ## **-:10:-** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9260/2016`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS`** - **`EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.`** - **`EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.`** ``` EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE REGISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES MAINTAINED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF 2ND PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.11.2015 TO 30.11.2015. ``` - **`EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE REGISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES MAINTAINED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF 3RD PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.11.2015 TO 30.11.2015.`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DTD.18.12.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.38681/2015.`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF NOTICE DTD.22.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.29.12.2015 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 7 TO 12 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P8 : COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P9 : COPY OF ORDER NO.G/2/16 DTD.24.2.2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`**