Muhammed Kunju Parayankudy House and others v. District Labour Officer, Kakkanad; Assistant Labour Officer; Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board; P.K. Jayan; Bharatheeya Mazdoor Sangham and others

**FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **1 MUHAMMED KUNJU PARAYANKUDY HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 547.** **2 P.A. HAMSA, PARAYANKUDI HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 547.** **3 SIDHEEK. P.A., PULICKAKUDY HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 547.** - **4 FAZAL P.U., PARAYANKUDI HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 547.** **5 SHAHIR P.M., PARAYANKUDI HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 547.** **6 NOUFAL. C.MAJEED, CHERUMOODAN HOUSE, CHIRAMOLAN, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 547.** **7 P.M. SHAMMER, PARAYANKUDI HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 547.** **8 P.M. SHAKKEER, PARAYANKUDI HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 547.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM** **SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER** **CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 031.** **2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,** **CIVIL STATION BUILDING, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 542.** **3. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,** - **MINI CIVIL STATION, KUTTAN PILLAI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 542.** **4. P.K. JAYAN, POOL LEADER - POOL NO. 167, PALAKKATTUTHAZHAM, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS COMMITTEE, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 542.** **5. BHARATHEEYA MAZDOOR SANGHAM, PERUMBAVOOR MEKHALA SAMITHI, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683 542, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.M.JASMINE** **BY SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB R4,R5 BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR R4,R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SREEJITH R4,R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SURESH (KANNUR) R4,R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.MANOJKUMAR R4,R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.SRUTHI DAS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 2959 of 2018 (T)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VAZHAKKULAM PANCHAYAT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARAMPILLY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P3 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENSE ISSUED BY VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.2959 of 2018 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of March, 2018 ## JUDGMENT First petitioner is running an establishment in a building owned by him within the limits of Vazhakkulam Panchayat. The establishment of the first petitioner is situated in an area covered by the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (the Scheme). As the first petitioner is precluded from engaging headload workers who do not have registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (the Rules), petitioners 2 to 8 who are appointed by the first petitioner for carrying out the loading and unloading works in his establishment, applied for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. The applications preferred by petitioners 2 to 8 have been dismissed by the second respondent in terms of Ext.P3 order holding that there is no evidence to indicate that **-:2:-** WPC 2959 /18 petitioners 2 to 8 are being engaged by the first petitioner to carry out the loading and unloading works in his establishment and that if the registration sought by petitioners 2 to 8 is granted, the workers pooled for carrying out the loading and unloading works under the Scheme by the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (the Board), would be affected. The petitioners challenged Ext.P3 order in appeal. The appellate authority, the first respondent set aside Ext.P3 order and directed the second respondent to take a fresh decision on the application preferred by petitioners 2 to 8, after considering the questions viz, whether the first petitioner has issued appointment orders to petitioners 2 to 8 and also whether there exists an establishment at all as claimed by the petitioners. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the appellate authority. Exts.P3 and P4 are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board as also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, who are two among the workers pooled to carry out the loading and **-:3:-** WPC 2959 /18 unloading works in the area under the scheme. 3. The reasons stated by the second respondent for declining registration sought by petitioners 2 to 8, viz, that there is no evidence to show that petitioners 2 to 8 are being engaged by the first petitioner in his establishment and that the grant of registration sought by petitioners 2 to 8 would adversely affect the pool workers, are not reasons found favour with this Court in identical matters. (See Rajeev v. District Labour Officer, Kakkanad [2010 (4) KLT 783] and Gangadharan C.P. and another v. Abdul Nasir and others [2016 (4) KLT 592]. Coming to the appellate order, the reasons stated by the appellate authority are that there is no evidence to show that the establishment exists and that the workers have been appointed by the employer to carry on the loading and unloading works in the establishment by issuing appointment orders. As noted above, petitioners 2 to 8 are seeking registration under Rule 26A of the Rules for the purpose of carrying out the loading and unloading works in the establishment of the first petitioner. As such, if they are **-:4:-** WPC 2959 /18 granted the registration sought by them, they cannot work elsewhere, but only in the establishment of the first petitioner. When applications for registration are preferred for working as attached headload workers, the scope of the enquiry by the competent authority is only to see as to whether they are eligible in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules to be engaged as headload workers. The issue as to whether the establishment is functioning after obtaining all the requisite licences and permissions is not a matter for the authorities under the Headload Workers Act to consider while granting or declining registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. Likewise, it is also not the look out of the authorities under the Headload Workers Act to see whether appointment orders are issued by the employer to the employee, when the employer categorically asserts that he has engaged the employee, and employee does not dispute the said fact. In the said view of the matter, according to me, the order passed by the appellate authority is also unsustainable. In the absence of any finding by the authorities below that the petitioners 2 to 8 are not eligible **-:5:-** WPC 2959 /18 to be registered as headload workers in accordance with the Act and the Rules, according to me, they are entitled to the registration sought by them. In the result, Exts.P3 and P4 orders are quashed and the second respondent is directed to grant registration sought by petitioners 2 to 8. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Sd/- vps 12/3 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE /True Copy/ PS to Judge