High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; Exts.P2 & P3 quashed; re...

Alfred Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 19800 of 2015 (Y)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Judgment Date
2015-10-12
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition allowed; Exts.P2 and P3 quashed. Respondents directed to consider the petitioner’s application and grant registration under Rule 26(a) within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, in light of the observations made above.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; Exts.P2 & P3 quashed; respondents directed to grant registration under Rule 26(a) within one month from receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Alfred Thomas, aged 26 years, S/O M.K. Thomas, A1 Travels, Room No.XI/446, CSI Mini Shopping Complex, Near Muthoot Group, Bakery Junction, Kottayam

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Department of Labour, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
  • District Labour Officer, Labour Office, Kottayam-686001
  • Assistant Labour Officer, Labour Office, Second Circle, Velappilly Line, Kottayam-686001
  • Deputy Labour Officer, Labour Office, Collectorate, Kottayam-686001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. A.AHZAR

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. K.A. Sanjeetha (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Alfred Thomas, operating a parcel service as a branch of A1 Travels, sought registration of himself and four employees under Rule 26(a) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules. The registering authority (3rd respondent) rejected the applications (Ext.P2) and the subsequent appeal before the District Labour Officer (2nd respondent) (Ext.P3) was dismissed. The petitioner argued that immediate registration was essential to avoid hardship and irreparable injury, since loading and unloading are daily requirements at his establishment. He relied on Ext.P4, a police-protection order in a related matter, and on the statutory scheme to support his claim that the employer can register his head-load workers and that non-registration would cause severe operational difficulties. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s workers had not been shown to be employed as head-load workers at the establishment and that registration must comply with the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, particularly paras 10, 11, 33–35, which address grievance redressal and employment rights. The court relied on prior decisions—Ramesh A.N. v. Assistant Labour Officer (First Circle), Thrissur & Others (2013 (4) KHC 484), Rajeev V. v. District Labour Officer, Kakkanad & Others (2010 (4) KHC 757), and Majeed v. District Labour Officer (2015 (1) KLT 750)—to hold that the right to employ one’s own head-load workers cannot be discarded and that registration may be granted. Ext.P4 was also cited. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; Exts.P2 and P3 are quashed, and the respondents are directed to grant registration under Rule 26(a) within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, Rule 26(a)Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (paras 10, 11, 33, 34, 35)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that registration under Rule 26(a) is necessary for himself and his workers to operate his parcel service lawfully; denial would cause hardship and irreparable injury. He relies on Ext.P4 (police protection order) and on prior judgments to show that employers can register head-load workers and that the scheme contemplates such registration, including the right to engage one’s own workers, which would be frustrated without timely registration.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petitioner’s establishment did not prove that the named individuals are bona fide head-load workers, and that registration must be in line with the Kerala Head Load Workers Scheme. They argue paras 10, 11, 33–35 address grievance redressal and the procedure for registration, and that the actions taken were in good faith; the petitioner’s demands amount to circumventing the scheme.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramesh A.N. v. Assistant Labour Officer (First Circle), Thrissur & Others2013 (4) KHC 484PositiveCited as supportive authority for the proposition that there is no blanket restriction on head-load workers seeking permanent employment or registration under the scheme.
Rajeev V. v. District Labour Officer, Kakkanad & Others2010 (4) KHC 757PositiveCited to support the view that registration requires only a reasonable qualification (e.g., good physique) and not prior experience with the employer.
Majeed v. District Labour Officer2015 (1) KLT 750PositiveCited to support the employer’s right to employ his own head-load workers even in notified areas.
W.P.(C) No.14386/2014Ext.P4 judgmentPositiveCited to show that police protection for loading/unloading can be granted in similar circumstances.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Alfred Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/20TH ASWINA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 19800 of 2015 (Y)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** ## **-----------------------** **ALFRED THOMAS, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.M.K.THOMAS, A1 TRAVELS, ROOM NO.XI/446, CSI MINI SHOPPING COMPLEX, NEAR MUTHOOT GROUP, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.** **2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, LABOUR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM -686 001.** **3. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, LABOUR OFFICE, SECOND CIRCLE, VELAPPILLY LINE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** **4. DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, LABOUR OFFICE, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM -686 001.** ## **BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2015, THE COURT ON 12-10-2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 19800 of 2015 (Y) -----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** - **P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.24030/2014 DATED 18.9.2014 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.9.2014 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2014 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.14386/2014 DATED 12.06.2014 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES BY THE PETITIONER.** - **P5(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES BY THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** **-----------------------------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **'CR'** ## **A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.** -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19800 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of October, 2015 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of registration of himself and other employees under Rule 26 (a) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules (for short, “the Rules”) as per Ext.P2 order and Ext.P3 appeal. 2. The petitioner alleges that he is running a parcel service, which is a branch of A1 Travels, Coimbathore. The said speed parcel service is functioning at A1 Travels, Room No.XI/446, CSI Mini Shopping Complex, Near Muthoot Group, Bakery Junction, Kottayam District. He has applied for registration of himself as well as other employees under Rule 26(a) of the Rules, which was denied as per Ext.P2 order. Ext.P3 appeal was also rejected. According to the petitioner, in the establishment of the petitioner, daily loading and unloading is necessary and if the registration W.P.(C) No. 19800 of 2015 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** is not granted immediately, the same would lead to untold hardship, irreparable injury and misery. Hence, this writ petition. 3. In the statement filed by the 2[nd] respondent, it is stated as follows; The petitioner has registered his name as an employer before the District Committee and has got registration as Reg.No.1008/12. The petitioner's father was running the establishment for more than 2 decades and since that period, the head load workers of the area are doing the loading and unloading work for the establishment. The 3[rd] respondent, who is the registering authority, has conducted necessary enquiries upon the applications submitted by Sri.Alfred Thomas, Fareed Shalk, Sakkel S.K, Rubeeul S.K. and Larif Sheik and found that they are not working as head load workers in the establishment. Hence, the applications were rejected vide Ext.P2 order. In the appeal, the petitioner was heard by the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner stated that he was facing much difficulties due to misconduct and indiscipline of the pool workers and hence, his own workers shall be got registered. The petitioner has produced copies of the W.P.(C) No. 19800 of 2015 ..3.. register of employment and wages containing names and amount of wages in respect of 4 employees viz. Fareed Shaik, Sakkeel S.K., Rabeeul S.K. and Larif Sheik. The 2[nd] respondent pointed out that the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 stipulates ample provisions under para 10, 11, 33, 34 & 35 to redress any grievance on the part of the employer being caused by the misconduct or indiscipline of the registered head load worker. According to the 2[nd] respondent, the petitioner has not taken any statutory remedial measures, but, striving to get rid of the registered head load workers. Hence, according to the 2[nd] respondent, the appeal was rejected in good faith. The scheme was implemented at Kottayam with effect from 10.09.1990. As per para 11 of the scheme, it is stated that after coming into force of this scheme for an area, no head load worker shall be employed or paid wages except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Hence, the 2[nd] respondent has taken the stand that the head load workers registered under the scheme have got a right for employment and to earn wages in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. W.P.(C) No. 19800 of 2015 ..4.. 4. Arguments have been heard. 5. The petitioner has submitted an application for registration of himself as well as other employees under Rule 26(a) of the Rules. As the same was not considered, he approached this Court with WP(C) No.24030/2014, which was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment directing the respondents to consider the application within a time frame. Thereafter, the application was rejected by the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P2 stating that the petitioner is the owner and others are not working in the said establishment. Against that, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2[nd] respondent, which also was dismissed as per Ext.P3. The petitioner relies on Ext.P4 judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No.14386/2014, by which, this Court granted police protection for loading and unloading in the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner also relies on Exts.P5 & P5(a), which are the true copies of the pages of register of employment and wages maintained by the petitioner, which would reveal W.P.(C) No. 19800 of 2015 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** that the employees by name, Fhareed Shaik, Sakkeel S.K., Rubbul S.K. and Larif Shaik, are working in the petitioner's establishment. 6. This Court in **Ramesh A.N.** v. **Assistant Labour Officer (First Circle), Thrissur & Others** [2013 (4) KHC 484] has observed that there is no restriction against any head load worker seeking permanent employment under an employer in an establishment situated within the area of operation of Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme. In **Rajeev V.** v. **District Labour Officer, Kakkanad & Others** [2010 (4) KHC 757], this Court observed that for obtaining registration, what is required is a good physic and when an employer is prepared to engage a person as a head load worker, it is not necessary that he should have already been working under the employer or he should have previous experience as a head load worker. Again in **Majeed** v. **District Labour Officer** [2015 (1) KLT 750], this Court W.P.(C) No. 19800 of 2015 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** observed that even in the notified areas, the right of an employer to employ his own head load workers cannot be discarded. It is evident from Ext.P5 series that the employer had confirmed the employment of a few workers; and therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting registration under Rule 26(a) of the Rules. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P2 & P3 are quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application in the light of what has been stated above and to grant registration under Rule 26(a) of the Rules within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ## Sd/- **A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE** bka/-