Nochiyoor Sureshkumar v. The District Labour Officer, Office of the District Labour Officer, Thiruvananthapuram; The Deputy Labour Officer, Office of the Deputy Labour Officer, Thiruvananthapuram; The Assistant Labour Officer, Neyyattinkara; Selvaraj.K; Appukuttan

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL`** ## **`WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 34514 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` NOCHIYOOR SURESHKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O RAJAYYEN, THIRUVATHIRA BHAVAN, MEKKATHIL PARAVAZHATHI VEEDU, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. C.S.AJITH PRAKASH T.K.DEVARAJAN M.B.SOORI HAARIS MOOSA BABU M. ANCY THANKACHAN NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN GOURI KAILASH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695033. ``` ``` 2THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 582. ``` ``` 4SELVARAJ.K, PALIVALA VEEDU, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 132. ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`WP(C)NO.34514 OF 2022`** - `5 APPUKKUTTAN,` ``` S/O. LATE GOPALAN, A C COTTAGE, KANNANVILA, VATTAVILA CHENKAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` SRI.V.K.SUNIL – GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NO.34514 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner apprehending action actuated on the basis of the complaint Ext.P7 without complying with the provisions of Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules, 1981, has approached this Court with the following prayers: - “I. To call for the records leading Ext.P-5 Notice, and quash further proceedings on exhibit P7 complaint as the proceeding are initiated by the 2[nd] respondent is not in compliance of the mandate of Rule 26 A (4) of the Kerala head load workers Rules, 1981. - ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the not to proceed with exhibit P7 complaint without serving a copy of the document annexed to the complaint and the report of the Registering Authority under Rule 26[A] [4] of the Kerala Head Load workers Rules, 1981, in the interest of justice. - Iii. to declare that the proceedings initiated on exhibit complaint is illegal and irregular in so far as not complying with the provisions of Rule 26(A)(4) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981. - iv. To issue such other writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case or as may be prayed from time to time. ``` WP(C)NO.34514 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` - v. To issue such other appropriate order or directions dispensing with the filing of English translation of the vernacular documents produced along with the writ petition.” 2. Petitioner is the holder of an identity card issued under Rule 26A of the aforementioned Rules Ext.P1 and various other cards have been issued to other workers, was flabbergasted to receive a notice dated 22.08.2022 Ext.P5 to him and to other co-workers on the subject of cancellation of the identity cards on the ground of complaint submitted by some 21 workers. The said hearing was ordered to be scheduled on 19.09.2022. On receipt of the aforementioned notice, petitioner submitted a request dated 17.09.2022 on 19.09.2022 for compliance of the provisions of Sub Rule 4 of Rule 26A and also for supply of the copy of the complaint. 3. Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though petitioner has been able to lay hands on the complaint Ext.P7 but it has also referred to certain exhibits which have not been supplied, much less the Deputy Labour Officer who is authorized to cancel the ``` WP(C)NO.34514 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` registration is obliged to receive a report from the registering authority who is none else the Assistant Labour Officer/registering authority. In the absence of the same, proceedings cannot be proceeded with in a slipshod manner, thus, the apprehension as expressed cannot be rejected on the objection of the respondent that the writ petition is premature. 4. Issue notice before admission. Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 3 and submits that Deputy Labour Officer empowered to deal with the complaint and would strictly adhere to the provisions of Rule 26A and other provisions of the Rules and Act for entertaining the complaint and much less adhere to the principles of natural justice. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and appraised the paper book. 6. Rule 26A of the the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 reads thus: **“[26A.Registration of Headload Workers:-** (1) [Any headload owrker may] submit his application for registration in Form IX to the Registering Authority concerned, with as many additional copies as there are employers or contractors ``` WP(C)NO.34514 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` from whom he claims to work. [(2) On receipt of such application the Registering Authority shall issue notice in Form X to the employers or contractors from whom the headload Worker claims work and in area where the Kerala Headload workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 is in operation, to the Chairman, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board Local Committee in such area with copy of the application inviting objections, if any, on such application.] (3) After considering the objections, if any, received and after giving an opportunity of being heard, the Registering Authority shall register the name of the headload worker in the Register of Headload Workers, on being satisfied that the headload worker is eligible for registration and communicate the fact to the parties within two weeks of such registration. The Registering Authority shall also issue identity card to the registered headload worker [in Form XI]. If the name is not registered, the Registering Authority shall communicate the fact to the applicant with reasons therefor. [(3A) Where the identity card of registration granted to a headload worker under sub section (3) is defaced or accidently lost or irrecoverably destroyed, he shall apply for a duplicate identity card along with two copies of recent photograph and a fine of Rs.25 (Rupees twenty five only) to the Registering authority concerned. The Registering authority may after making necessary enquiries and satisfying himself of the genuineness, issue a duplicate identity card.] [4.The registration of the person as headload worker ``` WP(C)NO.34514 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` may be cancelled by [the Deputy Labour Officer or the District Labour Office concerned or where there is no post of Deputy Labour Officer in that District Labour Office, by the Asst. Labour Officer Grade I] after satisfying himself on a report from Registering Authority that the Registration has been obtained by fraud or mistake: Provided that not less than one months' previous notice in writing specifying the ground on which the registration is proposed to be cancelled shall be given by the authority empowered to cancel the registration to the headload worker, before the registration is cancelled.]” 7. On plain and simple reading of the aforementioned Rules, it is deduced that the Deputy Labour Officer is empowered to deal with the complaint for cancellation of the identity cards, but it has to be on the basis of a report of the registering authority which has been defined to be Assistant Labour Officer. Since it is a complaint made by certain workers on some apprehensions or some grievance and the complaint reveals enclosure of certain exhibits which have also not been given. 8. In my view, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Labour Officer while issuing notice to petitioner and other ``` WP(C)NO.34514 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` similarly situated headload workers to enclose the copy of the complaint with exhibits and even if had not complied with the provisions of Sub Rule 4, this Court is sanguine of the fact that the Rules would be followed in letter and spirit before the final adjudication of the complaint, particularly when the petitioner and other workers have already requested to follow the procedure as evidenced from Ext.P8 dated 06.10.2022. In this view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition by issuing directions to the Deputy Labour Officer - 2[nd] respondent to follow directions/observations recorded hereinabove in stricto senso by complying with the principles of natural justice and thereafter take a call. Sd/- **AMIT RAWAL** **JUDGE** nak ``` 9 ``` ## **`WP(C)NO.34514 OF 2022`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34514/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD UNDER RULE 26 A ISSUED PETITIONER BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS RULES, 1981.` - `Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF ONE SUCH AFFIDAVIT FILED BY ONE EMPLOYER BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 27/07/2018.` ``` Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER DATED 27.06.2019. ``` - `Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE FULL BENCH DATED 19/02/2021 IN W.A. NO.1151/2019.` - `Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.08.2022.` ``` Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/09/2022. ``` - `Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH OTHER WORKERS, BEFORE THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER DATED 21/06/2021.` ``` Exhibit P8A TRUE COPY OF THE QUERY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER RTI ACT DATED 06.10.2022 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ```