/null

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 934 of 2019** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 SURESHKUMAR.R, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.RAJAYYEN, THIRUVATHIRA BHAVAN, MEKKATHIL PARAVAZHATHI VEEDU, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 ALOSIUS K, JOSE BHAVAN, PARAVAZHINJI, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **3 MANU S S, VADAKKEPLAVILA MOOLA, MEKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **4 JISHNU S S, PALAVILA VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **5 SANAL S, SANKARAMURI VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **6 LAWRENCE K, KARAVAKUZHI IDATHACHANVILA VEEDU, KEEZHKOLLA, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **7 BAIJU G L, MEKKATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAVAKUZHI, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **8 RAJESH S, S.V.NIVAS, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **9 SANTHOSH T S, PALAVILA VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** 2 **WP(C).934/2019** - **10 BINU KUMAR K, VALIYAVILAKAM, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **11 SANTHOSH G V, VALIYAKUZHI MANVEEDU, KEEZHKOLLA, AMARAVILA.P.O.** - **12 JOSE L, MUTTACAUDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **13 NIBU R, MUTTACAUDU PUTHEN VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **14 PRATHEESH KUMAR, THETTIKUZHI, MANNADI, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **15 BIJU KUMAR S, OOTTUKUZHI, KEEZHKOLLA, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **16 ROJIN T R, OOTTUKUZHI, KEEZHKOLLA, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **17 MAHESH S R, KOTTARATHUVILA VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **18 SAJEESH G, PULINGAMUTTATHU VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **19 ANNESHKUMAR, CHERUPULLAVILA VEEDU, KEEZHKOLLA, AMARAVILA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **20 BIJIN S, THEKKETHINAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **21 SHAIJU S S, THALAVILAKATHU THEKKEPUTHEN VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **22 PRADEEP S, PLAVILAMOOL, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** 3 **WP(C).934/2019** - **23 ANEESH A, VARAVACHI, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **24 JINU V S, PLAVILAMOOLA, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **25 SUNIL RAJ R, SUNIL BHAVAN, PARAVAZHINJI, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **26 SANAL RAJ R, PURATHAMARATHU VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **27 SAJI A,** - **S S BHAVAN, KARAVAKUZHI, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.ASWIN T SURESH SRI.A.T.JOSE SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL SRI.M.B.SOORI SRI.PAUL C THOMAS SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** - **2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582.** - **3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695132.** 4 **WP(C).934/2019** **4 APPUKUTTAN, SECRETARY, HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), CHENKAL PANCHAYATH, CHENKAL, RESIDING AT KUNJANVILA VEEDU, VATTAVILA.P.O., CHENKAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695132. 5 SELVARAJ K, PALIVALA VEEDU, CHENKAL.P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695132. BY ADVS. SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER POOJA SURENDRAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.03.2019, THE COURT ON 25/03/2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ========================= W.P.(C).No.934/2019 “C.R.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2019 ## J U D G M E N T This writ petition raises an important question for consideration as to the manner in which an application under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (for short, the “Rules”) has to be considered by a Registering Authority for registration of Headload Workers. 2. The petitioners, 27 in number, attached to the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) were given registration and identity cards pursuant to the applications made by them before the Assistant Labour Officer, Neyyattinkara, who is a competent Registering Authority under Rule 26 A of the Rules. The identity card specifies the employers and the particular area allotted to them to work as the Headload Workers. These registrations were done in the month of April 2018. The Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), another Headload Workers' Union of that area challenged registration and issuance of identity cards before the District Labour Officer. This was by invoking the appellate provision under Rule 26C of the aforenoted Rules. That appeal appears to have been filed on 25.7.2018. As seen from Rule 26C, the appeal will have to be filed within ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:2:-** 60 days and the maximum period provided under the Rule is six months from the date of the order. Acting upon the appeal, the District Labour Officer revoked and cancelled the registration cards issued to the petitioners as per Ext.P25. The order of the District Labour Officer is impugned in this writ petition. 3. In the impugned order, Ext.P25, it is stated that the Assistant Labour Officer had not followed the procedures contemplated under the law for registering the petitioners. It is also stated that without conducting an enquiry that the petitioners are working under the specified employers in the applications, the registration was granted to them. I am not adverting to previous litigation between the parties in this regard for the obvious reason that in the previous litigation, this Court taking note of the pendency of the appeal filed by CITU directed the District Labour Officer to consider the appeal and ordered that both, the petitioners as well as the employees under CITU, could work till the appeal is disposed. 4. The Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (for short, the “Act”) is an enactment to regulate the employment of Headload Workers in the State and to provide measures for their welfare. It also deals with provisions for their employment as well as non-employment. There are ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:3:-** two types of Headload Workers; one, attached with the establishment and the other, those who work in a specified area. Section 13 of Chapter IV of the Act provides a Scheme to regulate the employment of Headload Workers as well as to provide welfare to Headload Workers. It is for the Government to notify the Scheme in an area or areas specified in the notification. The present dispute arose in respect of an area which is not notified under Section 13. It appears that both petitioners, as well as Headload Workers under CITU, mainly depend upon headload works related to bricks in Chengal Panchayat. 5. Rule 26A of the Rules refers to registration of Headload Workers. There is no specified guidelines under the Rules as to the manner in which the applications have to be considered. Perhaps, the crux of the issue revolves around this. The Assistant Labour Officer, on filing the applications by the petitioners, granted registration as Headload Workers. The petitioners were permitted to do headload works attached with certainly specified employers and in areas mentioned. The claim of the Headload Workers under CITU is that they were registered as Headload Workers as early as in the year 1988 and the application ought ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:4:-** not to have been considered without notice to them. Admittedly, the petitioners have applied for registration only in the year 2018. 6. There may not be any difficulty to register a Headload Worker under a particular employer, provided, the employer has not raised any objection. In this case, in the cards issued to the petitioners, the name of certain employers have been specified, like AMBI, Thankappan, John Matha Industries, Nochiyoor Bricks Company, etc. It also specifies, the area as Nochiyoor. The petitioners have a case that the Headload Workers attached to CITU are working in a totally different area, namely, Plavilamoola and, therefore, they are not affected. It is not known whether the petitioners were registered under the specified employers, after notice to the employers. The registration with a specified employer will give an exclusive right to such Headload Workers to work under that employer. As seen from the impugned order of the District Labour Officer, it was without ensuring that the petitioners were working under the specified employers, the Assistant Labour Officer gave the petitioners registration. If it was done without notice to employers, it would amount to clandestine action of grabbing the work of existing Headload Workers, who are registered for the area. In the absence of registered workers under the employer, the ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:5:-** existing workers in the area would be entitled to demand work from such employers. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether registration under particular employers was based on their consent or not. 7. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the issue in regard to registration under the specified employers, will have to be reconsidered. This will be subject to other findings in regard to the scope of interference by the District Labour Officer. 8. In regard to the registration given to the petitioners for working in areas, on an appreciation of the pleadings and records produced before this Court, I am of the view that the petitioners, as well as the Headload Workers under CITU, are claiming works in the same area. Plavilamoola is coming under the Chengal Panchayat. Nochiyoor appears to be a wide area which includes Plavilamoola. The geographical area may not have much relevance if registration is granted attaching with a specified employer. However, it will have an impact upon the right of existing headload workers in areas while considering the claim of new applicants. As already observed, loading and unloading bricks in the Chengal Panchayat have given rise to competing claims to the rival parties. ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:6:-** 9. Are there any guidelines for considering the applications under Rule 26A of the Rules. I must answer this point in affirmative in the light of the following discussions:- 9.(i). Section 13 of the Act contemplates framing a scheme in the area specified under the notification. The scheme formulated under the Act is called the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983. The Scheme stipulates that no Headload Worker who is not a registered Headload Worker under the Rules shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies from the date of commencement of the functional operation of Scheme in the area. The Scheme also provides for registration of the Headload Workers at the time of commencement of the Scheme. Para.6A of the Scheme states that only such employees who have been registered under the provisions of the Rules alone are entitled to register with the Committee under the Scheme. Para.6B of the Scheme states that the Committee may assess the probable number of workers that may be required additionally, be replenished. Para.8 states that Headload Workers to whom a registration has been granted shall work only in the area allotted. Para.19 also states that the Committee shall determine the number of Headload Workers ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:7:-** needed for their area. The Scheme as such would show that the Committee has to determine the number of workers in a particular area. 9(ii). The Scheme has not been brought into effect as far as the area is concerned which is now the subject matter of dispute between these two rival Unions. But I am of the considered view that the same guidelines as such would apply in an area where the Scheme is not brought in for registering the Headload Workers. 9(iii). What is the purpose of registering a Headload Worker under Rule 26A of the Rules? No doubt, the obvious purpose of the Scheme is to allow them to register under the Scheme, when it is notified, is it possible to contend that in the absence of the Scheme, any number of Headload Workers can be registered in an area without restriction? I must answer it in negative. The purpose of the Act is to provide employment and to provide welfare measures. If there is a scope of work only for ten Headload Workers in an area, it may not be possible to give registrations to persons more than what is required. If registration is given in that manner, it would result in unemployment. I am sure that is not the contemplation of registration under Rule 26A. In the light of the context of Headload Workers Act and Rules, I am of the considered view that Rule 26A ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:8:-** postulates application of mind for registration of Headload Workers in regard to the number of Headload Workers required in an area. If not, it would defeat the very objective of the Act and Rules. It is also to be noted that the Government implemented a welfare scheme for unattached Headload Workers, not coming under the Scheme. It also provides for security measures in the event of retirement on superannuating at the age of 60 by way of pension and also in the event of death and as well as on account of permanent disability. Therefore, it is not possible to register Headload Workers on mere asking indiscriminately. 9(iv). The upshot of discussions clearly indicates that the Assistant Labour Officer before granting registration will have to determine the need of Headload Workers in respect of an area. Thereafter, he has to follow a transparent procedure for registration of Headload Workers by inviting applications. No Headload Workers, therefore, can be registered for a specified area without the Assistant Labour Officer determining the need for the area and following a transparent procedure by inviting applications. However, this procedure need not be adhered to for registering with a particular employer or employers. In those circumstances, a jural relationship would be created between the employer and the Headload ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:9:-** Workers and, that would come into existence in a manner known under the law. However, such registered Headload Workers under the specified employer cannot be permitted to work in another area without following the procedure aforenoted. To specify that the Assistant Labour Officer has to follow such procedure as required for registering a person in an area for allowing Headload Worker attached with an employer to work in the area as well. 10. The next question in the light of the challenge made before this Court is in regard to entertaining an appeal without an application for condonation of delay The appeal, admittedly, is filed within six months' time. The Headload Workers already working in the area also can be treated as an aggrieved for the purpose of Rule 26C. A Divison bench of this Court in **Jnana Prakasam v. Natarajan [2002 (1) KLT 39]** had taken the view that the Headload Workers working in an area is also aggrieved and competent to file an appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no delay condonation petition was filed and the District Labour Officer relied on various reports, complaints etc. without serving such copies on them. It may be true that the appeal was not accompanied by delay condonation petition. There is no necessity to file a separate ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:10:-** application for condonation of delay; if the District Labour Officer is satisfied with sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the specified period, he can entertain the appeal. What is required is an explanation in regard to the same in appeal. The appeal was filed vide Ext.P11 on 25.7.2018 within 90 days. That means it was within the outer limit of six months. The appellate authority had accepted the explanation that the Headload Workers attached with CITU came to know about registration only in the month of July 2018. According to me, that would be sufficient to entertain an appeal after the argued period fixed for filing the appeal. Apart from the justification of entertaining the appeal, I am also of the view that the impugned order can be sustained in the light of Rule 26A(4) which gives the power to the District Labour Officer as well to cancel a registration which is obtained by fraud or mistake. As observed in this matter, there is a serious flaw in granting registration. The registration was granted without verifying the fact that the petitioners were working under the employers. It appears that no notices were also given to the specified employers. The registration granted to the petitioners also suffer patent mistake as it was granted without conducting need-based study and also adopting a transparent procedure to enable all similarly situated workers to ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:11:-** apply. Therefore, the appellate order can also be justified in the light of the power given to the District Labour Officer under Rule 26A(4). However, the District Labour Officer ought to have remitted the matter for reconsideration of the Assistant Labour Officer in the light of the findings made by him. He could not have thrown out the petitioners applications. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside for reconsideration of the applications submitted by the petitioners by the Assistant Labour Officer. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed with the following directions: I. The impugned order is set aside for reconsideration of the applications submitted by the petitioners by the Assistant Labour Officer. ii. The Assistant Labour Officer shall consider entitlement of the petitioners for registration with the specified employers after notice to such employers. iii. The Assistant Labour Officer shall undertake an exercise to determine the need of the area based on the activities of loading and unloading activities of that area. If the Assistant Labour Officer is of the view that there is a requirement to register Headload Workers in an area, he shall consider the applications of the petitioners as well of other ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:12:-** applicants by issuing a previous notice to all. If there is a need in an area, the registration shall be given by adopting transparent norms and procedure to such eligible applicants. iv. No Headload Workers shall be registered with respect to an area without determining the need of that area. v. The petitioners shall be permitted to work with the specified employers in the identity cards subject to the outcome of the decision as above as a temporary measure. vi. Appropriate decision shall be taken after hearing the petitioners as well as the Headload Workers of CITU within two months. vii. The petitioners are restrained from working in any area without fresh orders passed in the matter. No costs. Sd/- ## A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:13:-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 934/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE CERTIFYING THE PLACE OF WORK/THE AREA OF OPERATION.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 B A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 C A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 3RD PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 D A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 4TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 E A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 5TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 F A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 6TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 G A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 7TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** ## **EXHIBIT P2 H** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 8TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:14:-** - **EXHIBIT P2 I A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 9TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 J A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 10TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 K A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 11TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 L A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 12TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 M A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 13TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 N A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 14TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 O A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 15TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 P A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 16TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 Q A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 17TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 R A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 18TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:15:-** **EXHIBIT P2 S** **A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 19TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 T A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 20TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 U A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 21ST PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 V A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 22ND PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 W A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 23RD PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 X A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 24TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 Y A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 25TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 Z A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 26TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P2AA A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE 27TH PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY/ALO.** - **EXHIBIT P3** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE ONE SUCH IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO ONE MR.SELVA RAJ WHO BELONG TO THE CITU UNION.** ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:16:-** **EXHIBIT P4** **A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY UNDER 26A ISSUED TO MR.RAJENDRAN SHOWING PLAVILAMOOLA UNIT.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.7.2018 IS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.7.2018 SUBMITTED TO THE DLO. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED BY THE WELFARE BOARD TO THE 2ND PETITIONER K ALOSIUS. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY MR.JOHN, PROPRIETOR OF JOHN INDUSTRIES (BRICK KLIN) AND PROPRIETOR OF MATHA BRICKS MR.AMBI SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G2/2186/18 DATED 20.7.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT DATED 6.9.2018 WITHOUT ITS ANNEXURES.** **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM PRODUCED BY THE PARTY RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE WRIT PETITION DATED 25.7.2018. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN PRODUCED IN WPC.NO.25215/2018. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.8.2018.** ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:17:-** **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.8.2018 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITHOUT ITS ANNEXURES.** **EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PRODUCED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS EXT.R4(C) IN WPC.NO.25215/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED UNDER RTI ACT DATED 16.7.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.25215/2018 DATED 11.9.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.9.2018.** **EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 26.9.2018 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.NO.33885/2018 DATED 16.10.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.33093/2018 DATED 26.10.2018.** **EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES MARKED AS ANNEXURE-R1(A) & ANNEXURE R2(B).** - **EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.33885/2018 DATED 23.10.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL OF THE UNION.** **EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER NO.G(2)2186/18 DATED 12.12.2018.** ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:18:-** **EXHIBIT P26** **A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE SEEKING COPY OF THE REPORTS SUBMITTED ON 1.1.2019.** **EXHIBIT P27** **A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THEIR WORK.** **EXHIBIT P28** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 09-11-2017** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(a)** **TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF 32 WORKERS WHO MEMBERS OF CHENKAL PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE OF TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION.** **EXHIBIT R4(b) THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED TO THE 32 WORKERS** **EXHIBIT R4(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE AREA ALLOTTED TO THE HOLDERS OF EXHIBIT R4(b) REGISTRATION CARDS.** **EXHIBIT R4(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SRI.JAYAN WHO IS RUNNING A BRICK KILN IN THETTIKUZHI** **EXHIBIT R4(d)(i) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R4(d)** **EXHIBIT R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SRI.VARGHESE WHO IS RUNNING A BRICK KILN IN KURAVAKKUZHI.** **EXHIBIT R4(e)(i) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R4(e)** **EXHIBIT R4(f)** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SRI.JOHNSON ALIAS VIJAYAN WHO IS RUNNING A BRICK KILN IN PLAVILAMOOLA.** ## W.P.(C).No.934/2019 ## **-:19:-** **EXHIBIT R4(f)(i) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R4(f) EXHIBIT R4(g) THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SRI.SHIBU WHO IS RUNNING A BRICK KILN IN KURAVAKKUZHI-MUTTACKAD.** **EXHIBIT R4(g)(i) EXHIBIT R4(h)** **THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R4(g)** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SRI.VIJAYAN WHO IS RUNNING A BRICK KILN IN MUTTACKAD.** **EXHIBIT R4(h)(i) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R4(h) EXHIBIT R4(i) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 21.01.2019 OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.** **EXHIBIT R4(i)(1) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R4(i) \\TRUE COPY//** **PS TO JUDGE** ms