High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-11-02Writ appeals disposed of; impugned judgment set...

WA Nos. 973 & 1504 of 2022, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:WA Nos. 973 & 1504 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Mohammed Nias C.P.
Judgment Date: 2022-11-02
Court Decision / Holding: Impugned judgment set aside; the Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad, is directed to consider the application afresh and decide thereon after hearing the establishment and the appellants in both cases, within one month from the copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ appeals disposed of; impugned judgment set aside; matter to be reconsidered afresh in light of Nishad’s directions, with hearing and a fresh decision within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Palakkad District Chummattu Mazdoor Sangham (BMS)
The Industrial Area Headload and General Workers Congress (INTUC)

Respondents

Humayoon & Associates
The District Labour Officer, Palakkad (Appellate Authority under Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules)
The Assistant Labour Officer, 3rd Circle, Civil Station, Palakkad
The Chairperson, Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board, Palakkad District Committee Office

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv Binooy Vasudevan

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv Thomas Abraham
• Adv Rajesh Sivaramankutty

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ appeals arise from the Kerala High Court’s judgment dated 11 July 2022 in WP(C) No. 18894 of 2022, challenging an appellate order that set aside a registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, and the grant of identity cards to attached workers. The petition by Humayoon & Associates sought to protect its registered workers, while the Palakkad unions (BMS and INTUC) challenged the registration, alleging lack of opportunity to file objections and potential loss of employment for headload workers. The appellate Board urged that Nishad, a Division Bench decision, overruled earlier precedents such as Brijesh John, Rajeev v. DLO, and Manzoor v. DLO, and thus the impugned judgment could not stand. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the application of Nishad required a fresh assessment of the registration. It set aside the impugned judgment and directed the Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad, to redetermine the registration afresh after hearing the establishment and the appellants within one month, thereby balancing due process with the protection of workers’ interests. The case reflects ongoing disputes over registration of headload workers and the proper application of Nishad’s doctrinal guidance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants (BMS and INTUC) contend that the registration under Rule 26A was granted without giving them an opportunity to file objections, and that such registration could lead to denial of employment opportunities to headload workers. They submit that due process requires proper hearing and response from all affected unions, and that the Division Bench decision in Nishad guides the need to reassess the matter afresh, balancing workers’ interests with regulatory aims.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in light of Nishad and related authorities, which allegedly overruled earlier decisions. They argue Ext.P1 (the registration order) was based on verified facts, and that the petitioners’ submissions to sustain the impugned judgment do not align with Nishad’s directions. The Board argues for adherence to Nishad’s guidance and fresh consideration of the application with due hearing.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Brijesh John and Ors. v. Assistant Labour Officer	2022 (1) KHC 58	Overruled	Nishad (ILR 2022 (3) Ker. 688) overruled this line of decisions, guiding the need for fresh consideration.
Rajeev v. DLO	2010 (4) KLT 783	Overruled	Nishad overruled earlier rulings including this one.
Manzoor v. DLO	2021 (5) KLT 554	Overruled	Nishad overruled this line of decisions as relied upon by the impugned judgment.
Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad and others	ILR 2022 (3) Ker. 688	Positive	Provides directions and doctrinal guidance subsequently followed to direct fresh consideration.

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 WA Nos. 973 & 1504 of 2022, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WA NO. 973 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18894/2022 OF HIGH COURT** ## **OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5:** 1 THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CHUMATTU MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS), REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD 678 001. 2 THE INDUSTRIAL AREA HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC) REPRESENTED BY M. SUDHAKARAN, S/O. MAYANDI, AGED 39 YEARS, ATTAPPALLAM VEEDU, PAMBAMPALLAM, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 621. BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 3:** 1 HUMAYOON & ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KALLIYATH BUILDING, NEAR PATSPIN, PARA ROAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 621. 2 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RULE 26 C OF THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD- 678 001. 3 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, PALAKKAD- 678 001. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, WA Nos.973 & 1504 of 2022 2 1ST FLOOR, M.A. COMPLEX, T.B ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM BY SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1504/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA Nos.973 & 1504 of 2022 3 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA,** **1944** **WA NO. 1504 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18894/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF** ## **KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** THE CHAIRPERSON, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, M.A. COMPLEX, T.B ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 & 5:** 1 HUMAYOON & ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KALLIYATH BUILDING,NEAR PATSPIN, PARA ROAD,KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD , PIN - 678621 2 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RULE 26C OF THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD ,678001 3 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, PALAKKAD- 678 001 4 THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT WA Nos.973 & 1504 of 2022 4 CHUMATTU MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS), REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD 678 001. 5 THE INDUSTRIAL AREA HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC) REPRESENTED BY M. SUDHAKARAN, S/O. MAYANDI, AGED 39 YEARS, ATTAPPALLAM VEEDU, PAMBAMPALLAM, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 621. BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN BY SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WA.973/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA Nos.973 & 1504 of 2022 5 **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ ------------------------------------------------------------------** WA Nos.973 & 1504 of 2022 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** Mohammed Nias.C.P. J. These writ appeals arise from the judgment dated 11.7.2022 in WP(C)No.18894 of 2022. 2. The writ petition is filed by the first respondent Humayoon & Associates challenging the order in appeal setting aside the order granting registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, (for short 'the Rules) and granting identity cards to the attached workers of the petitioner establishment. By the judgment impugned,Ext.P5 order dated 20.04.2022 of the appellate authority was set aside and Ext.P1 order dated 09.11.2021 of the Assistant Labour Officer granting registration under Rule 26A of the Rules to the attached workers, was restored. 3. WA No.973 of 2022 is filed by respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition, the Unions contending that the appellants were not given an opportunity to file their objections and that the WA Nos.973 & 1504 of 2022 6 registration to the establishment would result in denial of opportunity or loss of employment to the headload workers of the Unions. The Chair Person, Kerala Headload Workers and Welfare Board, who was the third respondent in the writ petition has filed WA No.1504 of 2022 again contending that they ought to have been given time to furnish objections and without awaiting for that Ext.P1 order was issued by the Assistant Labour Officer. It is also the argument of the Board that the learned single Judge rendered the judgment placing reliance on the judgment in **Brijesh John and Ors. v. Assistant Labour Officer** [2022 (1) KHC 58], which in turn was relying on the judgment of this Court in **Rajeev v. DLO** [2010(4)KLT783] and **Manzoor v. DLO** [ 2021 (5) KLT 554]. The learned counsel submits that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in **Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad and others** [ILR 2022 (3) Ker. 688] had overruled the above referred decisions and therefore the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to sustain the judgment by submitting that Ext.P1 order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner was after verifying the factual aspects and therefore, the impugned judgment is to be sustained. 5. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, we WA Nos.973 & 1504 of 2022 7 are of the firm view that the application of the petitioner establishment has to be considered afresh in the light of the directions contained in our judgment in **Nishad** (supra) . 6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. The Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad is directed to consider the application preferred by the establishment afresh and take a decision thereon in the light of the principles laid down in the decision referred above, after hearing the establishment and the appellants in both cases, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. **==> picture [24 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE** Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE** dlk 2.11.2022 WA Nos.973 & 1504 of 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WA 973/2022** ## **PETITIONERS ANNEXURES** |Annexure A|TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED| |---|---| ||26-11-2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.26708 OF 2021.| |Annexure B|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL| ||PREFERRED BY THE 2ND APPELLANT AND| ||OTHER EMPLOYEES DATED 23-11-2021.| |Annexure C|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL| ||PREFERRED BY ONE M.KANNAN DATED 20-11-| ||2021.| |Annexure D|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL| ||PREFERRED BY T.GURUSWAMY DATED 20-11-| ||2021.| |Annexure E|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL| ||PREFERRED BY S.SURESH BABU DATED 20-11-| ||2021| |Annexure F|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL| ||PREFERRED BY SIVAN K. DATED 20-11-2021.| |Annexure G|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY| ||T.BABU DATED 20-11-2021.| |Annexure H|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY| ||K.SATHEESH DATED 20-11-2021.| |Annexure I|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY| ||K.MAHESH DATED 20-11-2021.| |Annexure J|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY| ||E.M.SURESH DATED 20-11-2021.| |Annexure K|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL| ||PREFERRED BY K.RAJAKUMARAN DATED 20-11-| ||2021.| |Annexure L|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL| ||PREFERRED BY V.VIJAYAN DATED 20-11-| ||2021.| |Annexure M|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL| ||PREFERRED BY C.SIVAKUMAR DATED 20-11-| ||2021.| |Annexure N|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL| ||PREFERRED BY PRAJEESH A. DATED 20-11-| WA Nos.973 & 1504 of 2022 9 2021. Annexure O TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY S.SANTHOSH DATED 20-112021. Annexure P TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY C.RATHEESH DATED 20-112021. Annexure Q TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY T.KRISHNAKUMAR DATED 2011-2021. Annexure R TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY C.SUNIL DATED 20-11-2021. Annexure S TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY T.SATHEESH DATED 20-112021. Annexure T TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY K.V.VIJAYAN DATED 20-112021. Annexure U TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY M.CHANDRAN DATED 20-112011. Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-122021 IN W.P.(C) NO.26708 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Annexure W TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-122021 IN W.P.(C) NO.28976 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Annexure X TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-122021 IN W.P.(C) NO.29102 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.