Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board & Headload and General Workers Union (CITU) v. Shoukathali M. and Others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` WA NO. 1243 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2021 IN WP(C) NO.16669 OF ``` ``` 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## _`APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:`_ ``` KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM-676 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ``` ``` BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:`_ - _`1 SHOUKATHALI.M., AGED 42 YEARS`_ - _`S/O.MUHAMMED, MATTATH HOUSE, CHERUMUKKU P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306.`_ - _`2 MOHAMMED HAKKIM.P.K., S/O.BAVA.P.K., PANDAMKAVIL, CHIRAMANGALAM, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 303.`_ - _`3 MOHAMMED IQBAL.C., S/O.MUSTHAFA.C., CHAPPANGATTIL HOUSE, KAKKAD P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTICT-676 306.`_ - _`4 HASSAN ALI, S/O.ENIKUTTY, AMMAMVEETTIL, AKKARAMANNIL KALATHINGALPARA, MOONNIYOOR SOUTH P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 311.`_ - _`5 MUHAMMED,`_ - _`S/O.ALAVI, PATHOOR HOUSE, KODINCHI, NANNAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-676 309.`_ - _`6 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM-676 505.`_ ``` WA NOs.1243 OF 2021 & 334/2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 7ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306. ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WA NOs.1243 OF 2021 & 334/2024 ``` **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ``` WA NO. 334 OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.8.2021 IN WP(C) NO.16669 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ``` APPELLANTS/NOT PARTIES IN THE WRIT PETITION: ``` ``` 1HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKER UNION (CITU) REG.NO. 580/85, CHEMMAD UNIT, CHEMMAD P.O. TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306. REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR MOIDEEN P. AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MAMMADEESA, CHALIPURAKKAL P.O. VAZHAVYOOR EAST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 633. ``` ``` 2CHEMMAD CHUMATTU THOZHILALI UNION (HMS), CHEMMAND P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306. REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR HYDROSKOYA L., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIKOYA K., KALATHINGAL, KANNADITHADAM P.O., PANTHARANGADI, MALAPPURAM 676 306. ``` ``` 3SWATHANTHRA CHUMATTU THOZHILALI UNION (STU), CHEMMAD UNIT, CHEMMAD P.O. TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306. REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR MAMUKOYA V , AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. UMMERKOYA, THANNIYANGAD PARAMBA HOUSE, PALLIKAL P.O.,. MALAPPURAM 673 634. ``` ``` WA NOs.1243 OF 2021 & 334/2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` 4CHUMATTU THOZHILALI UNION (INTUC), CHEMMAD UNIT, CHEMMAD P.O. TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306. REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR SHOUKATH K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI, MALAPPURAM 673 634. ``` ``` BY ADV ANIL K.NAIR ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:`_ ``` 1SHOUKATHALI M., AGED 42 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, MATTATH HOUSE, CHERUMUKKU P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306. ``` ``` 2MOHAMMED HAKKIM.P.K., S/O. BAVA.P.K., PANDAMKAVIL, CHIRAMANGALAM, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303. 3MOHAMMED IQBAL.C., S/O.MUSTHAFA.C., CHAPPANGATTIL HOUSE, KAKKAD P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306. ``` ``` 4HASSAN ALI, S/O.ENIKUTTY, AMMAMVEETTIL, AKKARAMANNIL HOUSE, KALATHINGALPARA, MOONNIYOOR SOUTH P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 311. ``` ``` 5MUHAMMED, S/O.ALAVI, PATHOOR HOUSE, KODINCHI, NANNAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-676 309. ``` ``` 6DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM-676 505. ``` ``` WA NOs.1243 OF 2021 & 334/2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` - _`7 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306.`_ ``` 8KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM-676 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) K.P.SUDHEER ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WA NOs.1243 OF 2021 & 334/2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Amit Rawal, J.** 1. This order shall dispose of two writ appeals preferred by the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board and the Headload and General Workers Union against the judgment dated 24.08.2021 rendered in W.P. (C)No.16669/2020 preferred by the establishment aggrieved of the rejection of the application for registration of the workers in a business of ceramics and tiles Centre. Learned Single Bench noticing the judgment of **Gangadharan C.P** . v. **Abdul Nasir** reported in 2016 (5) KHC 23B, allowed the writ petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that as and when applications are submitted for registration in Form IX, the Assistant Labour Commissioner is enjoined upon an obligation to hold an enquiry. In the absence of the enquiry, the order was passed in a summarily manner. This fact was also not noticed while ``` WA NOs.1243 OF 2021 & 334/2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` dismissing the writ. Therefore, it is a fit case where the matter is required to be revisited. The ratio decidendi culled out in **Gangadharan C.P** (supra) would not be applicable in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in **Sureshkumar R. and Others** v. **District Labour Officer, Tvm and Others** 2021(2) KHC 215 (FB) whereby it has been held that registration can be only permitted to employees who are attached and working in the establishment. This fact has also not been ascertained and therefore there is an ambiguity/abdication. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-establishment submitted that the allegations of the appellants that the workers employed in the business of the respondents are working as salesmen is neither here and there for, discharging the duties of unloading and loading of bulk of tiles and also loading into the vehicle of customers cannot be construed to be work of salesman. In support of the contention relied upon the judgment of Single Bench. ``` WA NOs.1243 OF 2021 & 334/2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised paper books. 4. These controversies are already covered by the judgment rendered in **Sureshkumar R. and Others** v. **District Labour Officer, Tvm and Others** 2021(2) KHC 215 (FB) wherein the question raised was whether the employees who have not been attached and working in the establishment as per their wish can seek a registration or otherwise. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the findings of the Single Bench to the limited extent by upholding the other findings. In this case, no such material has been placed on record on behalf of the appellant to establish non-attachment of the workers. Allegation that it would adversely affect the headload workers in the scheme area, in our considered view, cannot be accepted as it is in violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons aforementioned, the arguments of the ``` WA NOs.1243 OF 2021 & 334/2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` counsel for the appellant do not merit acceptance. No interference is called for. Appeals are accordingly dismissed. **Sd/AMIT RAWAL JUDGE C.S. SUDHA JUDGE** **Sd/-** nak ``` WA NOs.1243 OF 2021 & 334/2024 ``` ``` 10 ``` ## _`APPENDIX OF WA 334/2024`_ ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1THE TABULATED LIST OF WORKERS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN LOADING AND UNLOADING WORK IN THE SCHEME COVERED AREA OF CHEMMAD. ``` ``` Annexure A2A SAMPLE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED UNDER RULE 26A AT CHEMMAD AREA TO MOIDEEN P1. ```