High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-04-11Writ petition disposed with directions to the f...

Nadheem Spices and Industries v. The Assistant Labour Officer (A.L.O.) North Paravur, Ernakulam District and The Kerala State Head Load Workers Welfare Board

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 9080 of 2012 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. N. Ravindran
Judgment Date: 2012-04-11
Court Decision / Holding: Disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Exts. P2–P8 expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of the judgment. The first respondent shall issue notice to and hear the petitioner, the applicants, and the Chairman of the Ernakulam District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board before taking a decision, and shall have due regard to the principles laid down in Rajiv v. District Labour Officer while deciding.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with directions to the first respondent to decide Exts. P2–P8 within two weeks after production of a certified copy of the judgment, with notice and hearing for the petitioner, applicants, and KHLWWB’s Ernakulam District Committee, and to apply the Rajiv v. District Labour Officer principles while deciding the matter. Neutral citation not provided in the document.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nadheem Spices and Industries, represented by its proprietor T.B. Abdul Karim S/o Bavunni, aged 70 years

Respondents

The Assistant Labour Officer (A.L.O.) North Paravur, Ernakulam District (PIN-683515)
The Kerala State Head Load Workers Welfare Board, Ernakulam District Committee represented by its Chairman (PIN-683513)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. P. M. Ziraj

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Koshy George, SC, KHLWWB
• Govt. Pleader Sri G. Gopakumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Nadheem Spices and Industries, a business establishment in Ernakulam district, engaged eight workers to perform loading and unloading. These workers submitted Exts. P1–P8 applications seeking registration as headload workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, but the registering authority did not dispose of the applications. Consequently, the petitioner cannot deploy the workers due to obstruction by registered headload workers in the locality. The prayer is for a direction to the first respondent, the registering authority, to pass orders on Exts. P2–P8 within a time frame fixed by the Court, so that the workers can render service. The Court notes a Full Bench decision in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police that even in areas not covered by the Kerala Headload Workers Scheme, 1983, permanent workers engaged in loading/unloading must register under Rule 26A, and thus the first respondent should act expeditiously. The Court disposes the petition with a direction to decide Exts. P2–P8 within two weeks from production of a certified copy of the judgment, after notice to the petitioner, the applicants, and the Ernakulam District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, and in accordance with the principles laid down in Rajiv v. District Labour Officer.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Permanent workers engaged in loading/unloading must register under Rule 26A even if the Headload Workers Scheme does not apply.
Principles laid down in Rajiv v. District Labour Officer (2010 (4) KLT 783)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The eight workers were engaged to perform loading/unloading; they filed Exts. P1–P8 for registration under Rule 26A; since these have not been disposed, the petitioner cannot utilise the workers and faces obstruction from existing headload workers. The petitioner seeks an expeditious disposal of the registrations, relying on the Full Bench decision in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police and the principle that registration is required, with notification and hearing.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the document; Respondents’ arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police	1998 (2) KLT 733	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that permanent workers engaged in loading/unloading must apply for registration under Rule 26A even where the Kerala Headload Workers Scheme does not apply.
Rajiv v. District Labour Officer	2010 (4) KLT 783	Positive	Principles laid down by this Court in Rajiv to be considered in deciding the matter.

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 Nadheem Spices and Industries v. The Assistant Labour Officer (A.L.O.) North Paravur, Ernakulam District and The Kerala State Head Load Workers Welfare Board 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 P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/22ND CHAITHRA 1934 WP(C).No. 9080 of 2012 (H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- NADHEEM SPICES AND INDUSTRIES, DOOR NO.VII/631, JEW TOWN, COCHIN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HAVING ITS ITS GODOWN AT ELLOOKKARA MUPPATHADAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR T.B.ABDUL KARIM S/O.BAVUNNI, AGED 70 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER (A.L.O.) NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683515. 2. THE KERALA STATE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-683513. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 9080/2012 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS - EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/3/2012 SUBMITTED BY MR.UNNIKRISHNAN K.K. BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/3/2012 SUBMITTED BY MR.JITUL BARUAH BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/3/2012 SUBMITTED BY MR.NEPIN GOGOI BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/3/2012 SUBMITTED BY MR.SUCHAN GAGOI BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/3/2012 SUBMITTED BY MR.SHAMSUDHEEN BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/3/2012 SUBMITTED BY MR.INDRAJITH BORUAM BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/3/2012 SUBMITTED BY MR.DASAN C. BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/3/2012 SUBMITTED BY MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.A. BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL /True Copy/ vps PA to Judge ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J.** ## **--------------------------W.P.(C) No.9080 OF 2012 -------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is running a business establishment within the local limits of Ernakulam District. It is stated that he has engaged eight workers namely Mr.Unnikrishnan, Mr.Jitul Boruah, Mr.Nepin Gogoi, Mr.Suchan Gogoi, Mr.Shamsudhin, Mr.Indrajith Boruah, Mr.Dasan C. and Mr.Sajeev Kumar K.A., to do the loading and unloading work in his establishment that the said workers have submitted the originals of Ext.P1 to Ext.P8 applications for registration as headload workers under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, but the said applications have not been disposed of as a result of which, the petitioner is not in a position to avail their services on account of the obstruction raised by registered headload workers of the locality. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks an order directing the first respondent, the registering authority to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 to Ext.P8 applications within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. A Full Bench of this Court has in **Raghavan v.** WPC No.9080/2012 2 **Superintendent of Police** (1998 (2) KLT 733) held that even in in an area to which the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 is not applicable, permanent workers engaged to do loading and unloading work in establishments have to apply for and obtain registration under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. In such circumstances, as the petitioner claims that he has employed eight workers to do the loading and unloading work in his establishment, I am of the opinion that the Assistant Labour Officer, the first respondent herein, should pass expeditious orders on the applications for registration. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 to Ext.P8 applications expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say the first respondent shall issue notice to and afford the petitioner, the applicants and the Chairman of the Ernakulam District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board an opportunity of WPC No.9080/2012 3 being heard before taking a decision in the matter. The first respondent shall also have due regard to the principles laid down by this Court in **Rajiv v. District Labour Officer** (2010 (4) KLT 783) while taking a decision in the matter. The petitioner shall in order to enable the first respondent to act as directed above, produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the decision of this Court in **Rajiv v. District Labour Officer** (supra) before him. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.9080/2012 4 WPC No.9080/2012 5 WPC No.9080/2012 6 WPC No.9080/2012 7