Sasidharan Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Murali Purushothaman, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2023-08-17
- Court Decision / Holding
- Set aside Exts.P12 & P13, remand the matter for fresh consideration by the 3rd respondent for appropriate orders on the applications of petitioners 2 to 10 for registration, in accordance with law, and in light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Nishad’s case (supra). To be completed within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of (remand for fresh consideration within one month)
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- SASIDHARAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.GOVINDA KURUP, THEMPANKUZHI VEEDU, NELLANAD P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695606
- BAIJUKUMAR.N., AGED 43 YEARS S/O.NAGAPPAN NAIR, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, VAVARA AMBALAM, POTHENCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695584
- ANIL KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, KAVUVILA VEEDU, PARACKAL, ALIYADU P.O., KOLIYAKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695607
- VINEESH KUMAR.T.T., AGED 47 YEARS S/O THANKAPPAN PILLAI, KOUSTHUBAM, PARACKAL, ALIYADU.P.O., KOLIYAKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695607
- VINEESH.M., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MURALI, KARIKKUZHY VEEDU, KARICHAYIL, NELLANAD P.O., VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695606
- RAJESH.R., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, PANTHAPLAVIKONAM, NELLANAD P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695606
- RATHEESH.R., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, PULLAMPARA, NELLANAD P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695606
- RAJESH KUMAR.M.O., AGED 43 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, RAJESH BHAVAN, KITTIYANI, PANTHALACODE P.O., VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695028
- GOPAKUMAR.K., AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAPILLAI, K.G. BHAVAN, PANTHAPLAVIKKONAM, NELLANAD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695606
- SURENDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, NEERUMANKADAVU P.O., MITHIRMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695610
Respondents
- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHURAM, PIN - 695001
- DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
- ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER LABOUR OFFICE, ATTINGAL, CIVIL STATION P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695101
- KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KAUSTHUBHAM COMPLEX, CHENTHITTA, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • A.S. Shammy Raj
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Thomas Abraham
- • Smt. Parvathy K., Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
Facts: The 1st petitioner Sasidharan Nair is the employer intending to commence a hardware shop. Petitioners 2 to 10 are headload workers engaged by the 1st petitioner for loading and unloading in the proposed establishment. The petitioners sought registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and the 3rd respondent rejected these applications by Ext. P12. The petitioners challenged the decision by filing a writ petition under Article 226, with an appeal under Section 26(C) of the Rules; Ext. P3 records the appeal rejection. The petitioners’ counsel contended that the sole reason for rejection is that issuance of registration cards would reduce the employment of other headload workers in the area; they relied on the Division Bench decision in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad M.B. and Others, 2022 (5) KHC 367, which held that reduction of employment cannot be a per se bar to registration under Rule 24A. The respondents urged that welfare considerations and local employment impacts justify the denial. After hearing both sides, the judge held that it would be just and proper to set aside Exts. P12 and P13 and remand the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration of the registration applications for petitioners 2 to 10, in accordance with law and in light of Nishad’s dictum. The remand shall be completed within one month from receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Nishad M.B. dictum (Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad M.B. and Others)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Petitioners contended that rejection of registration under Rule 26A was unjust; the ground that registration would reduce employment of other headload workers cannot be a valid ground; relied on Nishad M.B. dictum; requested remand and fresh consideration under Section 26(C) in light of law; relied on Exhibits P3-P11 and P12-P13.
Contentions of Respondents
State and officers argued that registration decisions must consider welfare concerns and local employment; the orders Ext P12 and Ext P13 are justified; remand would not override regulatory framework; reliance on the department's positions and law.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad M.B. and Others | 2022 (5) KHC 367 | Positive | Court relied on Nishad M.B. dictum to hold that reduction of employment cannot justify denying registration under Rule 24A; directed remand for fresh consideration in light of that ruling. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Sasidharan Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.