High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-12-02Writ petition allowed; Exts P7 and P9 set aside...

Prabha Mathew v. Assistant Labour Officer, First Circle, Palakkad; District Labour Officer, Palakkad; Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board Local Committee, Palakkad

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 25099 of 2014 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2014-12-02
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. Exts.P7 and P9 are set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to grant registration under Rule 26A of the Rules within three weeks from receipt of this judgment. Exts.P2 to P5 shall stand restored to the file of the 1st respondent. The petitioner’s writ petition is disposed of, with costs to be borne by the parties.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Exts P7 and P9 set aside; registration under Rule 26A to be granted within three weeks; Exts P2-P5 restored; costs cast on parties.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Prabha Mathew, Proprietrix, Alan Enterprises

Respondents

Assistant Labour Officer, First Circle, Palakkad
District Labour Officer, Palakkad
Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board Local Committee, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Jaju Babu (Sr.)
• Sri M. U. Vijayalakshmi
• Sri Brijesh Mohan

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader (R1)
• Adv. Joy George, SC (R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner in WP(C).No. 25099 of 2014 approaches this Court challenging the non-registration of four proposed head-load workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981. Prabha Mathew, proprietrix of Alan Enterprises at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Palakkad, asserted a right to register the workers and to employ them for loading and unloading within the establishment, arguing that the existence of a welfare pool cannot bar registration. The respondents, including the Assistant Labour Officer and the District Labour Officer, rejected the applications (Ext.P7) and the Appellate Authority affirmed (Ext.P9). The Court notes that the inspection leading to Ext.P7 found no operations on the premises, and that such inspection occurred without notice. Petitioner produced numerous documents (Exts.P10–P16) indicating its regular activities, registrations, and consents, calling into question the respondents’ reasons. The Court relied on earlier Kerala High Court rulings (Rajeev V. v. DLO Kakkanad; V-Star Creations (P) Ltd.; Baheer P.A. v. ALO Perumbavoor) which held that employers have a right to registration and that coverage of the scheme or the presence of pool workers cannot automatically deny it. Holding that Exts.P7 and P9 are illegal, the Court directed registration under Rule 26A, restored Exts. P2–P5, and disposed of the petition with costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 26A of the Head Load Workers Rules, 1981 (Kerala)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the right to register head load workers under Rule 26A is a statutory entitlement enabling an employer to carry on loading and unloading work with registered workers within the establishment. It argues that non-registration cannot be justified by the mere absence of operations at the time of inspection, particularly when the unit shows ongoing activities through Exts.P10–P15 (registrations, VAT returns, electricity bill, pollution clearance). Relying on established Kerala High Court precedents, the petitioner asserts that coverage of the scheme and the existence of pool workers cannot deprive the employer of registration and that Ext.P7 and the subsequent appellate confirmation are unsustainable in light of these decisions and the evidence of continued operation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the registration was rightly denied since the inspection (Ext.P7) found no operations and the petitioner failed to establish the commencement date. They argue that the Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board’s scheme and the pool of workers under the Boardsupersede individual registration, and that the Appellate Authority’s and Original Authority’s findings were justified. They maintain that the decisions denying registration were properly grounded in the absence of verified ongoing activity and compliance with scheme provisions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajeev V. v. District Labour Officer, Kakkanad and Others	2010 (4) KHC 757	Positive	Supports the right of the employer to obtain registration under Rule 26A, reinforcing that the right to registration exists notwithstanding pool arrangements.
V-Star Creations (P) Ltd. v. District Labour Officer	2012 (2) KLT 883	Positive	Affirms employer's right to registration in the context of head-load work, used to counter denial based on scheme coverage.
Baheer P.A. @ Abdul Basheer P.A. and Others v. Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor	2012 (3) KHC 650	Positive	Cited for the proposition that registration cannot be denied solely due to pool system presence; supports the petitioner's position.

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 Prabha Mathew v. Assistant Labour Officer, First Circle, Palakkad; District Labour Officer, Palakkad; Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board Local Committee, Palakkad 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 25099 of 2014 (J)** **---------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **----------------------** **PRABHA MATHEW, PROPRIETRIEX, ALAN ENTERPRISES, 4/570 SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PUTHUPPARIYARAM PALAKKAD 678 731.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** **1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD 678 001.** ## **2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD 679 335.** *** ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED** **3. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD LOCAL COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** **ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.10.2014 IN IA 13171/2014.** **R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **WP(C).No. 25099 of 2014 (J)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO PPM/369/13 DATED 5-1-2013 OF THE PETITIONER'S SSI UNIT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26-12-2012 FOR REGISTRATION OF HEADLOAD WORKER SRI OMANAKUTTAN K.A SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A OF THE HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES,1981 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26-12-2012 FOR REGISTRATION OF HEALD LOAD WORKER SRI RAJESH D SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A OF THE HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES,1981 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26-12-2012 FOR REGISTRATION OF HEAD LOAD WORKER SRI RAJAN P.A SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A OF THE HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES,1981 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26-12-2012 FOR REGISTRATION OF HEADLOAD WORKER SRI JAYARAJAN A ,RAJAN P.A SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 26A OF THE HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES,1981 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-02-2013 IN WPC NO 4103/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE ORDER NO HL 99/13 DATED 22-03-2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 02-04-2013 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE ORDER NO C 1710/2013 DATED 06-03-2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OBTAINED ON 08-08-2012 BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT** - **EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE CONSENT NO PCB/PLKD/IC/CE-1314/2012 DATED 07-122012 OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S UNIT** - **EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO PPM/369/13 DATED 05-01-2013 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER** **PJ** **....2/-** **..2..** ## **WP(C).No. 25099 of 2014 (J)** ## **---------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE FIRST ELECTRICITY BILL NO 0123660 DATED 04-05-2013 OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE ACCEPTED RETURNS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT (VAT ACT) FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2013 ON 25-05-2013** - **EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURNS FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR 2013-2014 DATED 23-07-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER VAT ACT** - **EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.WAGES 3627/14 DATED 15/11/14 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONA R3 TO THE PETITIONER** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 25099 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 2[nd] December, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is aggrieved with the non registration of workers under Rule 26A of the Head Load Workers Rules 1981 (Kerala), (for short 'the Rules'). The petitioner who was conducting a small scale industrial Unit at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Palakkad, applied for registration of four workers under Rule 26A of the Rules. Exts.P2 to P5 are the applications filed by the petitioner. The respondent authorities having refused to consider the same, the petitioner was once before this Court with W.P.(C).4103/2013 and by Ext.P6, there was a direction to consider the applications. The petitioner herein challenges Ext.P7 by which applications were rejected and Ext.P9 by which the Appellate Authority confirmed the said rejection. **WP(C).25099/14** 2 2. A reading of Ext.P7 would indicate that the Labour Officer had conducted an inspection in which it was found that, there were no operations being carried on in the premises. It is clear that the Labour Officer has conducted such inspection without notice to the petitioner and nothing is stated as to the time at which the inspection was so conducted. The Appellate Authority also relies on such inspection and further states that the petitioner was not able to substantiate as to when the Industry was commenced. On such reasoning, rejection made by the Original Authority was confirmed by Ext.P9. 3. Before the Appellate Authority and the Original Authority, the petitioner had produced a number of decisions of this Court which unequivocally declared the right of an employer to get registered, the head load workers in its **WP(C).25099/14** 3 regular employment and thus carry on the loading and unloading work within the establishment, by such registered workers. In fact, in a Scheme covered area without such registration, an establishment would have to concede such loading and unloading work in the establishment, to the pool workers appointed by the Board. It was hence the petitioner had filed the aforesaid applications for registration under Rule 26A. The said position is declared by the decisions reported in **Rajeev V. v. District Labour Officer, Kakkanad and Others (2010 (4) KHC 757)** , **V-Star Creations (P) Ltd. v. District Labour Officer (2012 (2) KLT 883)** and **Baheer P.A. @ Abdul Basheer P.A and Others v. Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor (2012 (3) KHC 650)** . 4. Coverage of Scheme and existence of pool workers in the area cannot be a reason to decline such registration. The petitioner before **WP(C).25099/14** 4 this Court, has produced Exts.P10 to P15 which would indicate that the petitioner's operations are being carried on in a regular manner. Further, it is also to be noticed that, despite the assertion of the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority that no operations are carried on, the petitioner has been issued with Ext.P16 notice by the Chairman of the Palakkad Jilla Committee of the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board, the 3[rd] respondent herein, directing registration and assignment of loading and unloading work to the pool members of the area. It is not clear as to why such a notice was issued, if there is no work carried on in the petitioner's establishment. 5. In such circumstances, Exts.P7 and P9 are illegal and not sustainable and shall stand set aside. The 1[st] respondent is directed to grant registration under Rule 26A of the Rules, **WP(C).25099/14** 5 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Exts.P2 to P5 shall stand restored to the files of the 1[st] respondent. The writ petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs. **==> picture [32 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge** Mrcs //True Copy//