'CR'

The petitioner is a partnership firm conducting a hotel at Chengannur represented by its Managing Partner. According to the petitioner he is conducting a Hotel and Bar in the same premises. He has a number of permanent employees under him working in various capacities as cooks, waiters, cleaning personnel, persons who do the house keeping work and so on. The petitioner's establishment is engaged in conducting a Hotel and Bar that does not require the services of headload workers. Nor does his establishment undertake any loading and unloading work in a regular manner. Occasionally, provisions are brought to his establishment or bottles of liquor are supplied, which are all unloaded by his permanent employees as part of their regular duties. In fact, the petitioner's case is that his permanent employees attend to whatever loading or unloading work that may occasionally arise in his hotel, as part of their normal duties. Therefore, he is not an 'employer' as defined by the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. Nor is the said Act applicable to him or his establishment.

2. In spite of the above, the second respondent issued Ext.P1 notice to him under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (the 'Scheme' for short) requiring him to register himself as an employer under paragraph 7 thereof. It is also directed that he should seek the services of registered Headload workers under the second respondent for the purpose of attending to the work of loading and unloading in his establishment. The petitioner replied to Ext.P1 by Ext.P2. In Ext.P2, the petitioner explained that there was no employee in his establishment coming within the scope of the authority of the second respondent. He also pointed out that his employees were covered by the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Workers Welfare Fund Act and that he was regularly remitting the contributions payable in respect of his employees, under the said Act. Therefore, he requested for all further action in the matter to be dropped. However, the second respondent did not accept the explanation in Ext.P2 but issued Ext.P4 proceedings intimating the petitioner that in all establishments coming within the area of operation of the Scheme, it is the right of the employees registered under paragraph 6A thereof to attend to the loading and unloading work. He has also informed that the omission to get himself registered as directed in Ext.P1 would entail the initiation of prosecution proceedings against him. Therefore he has been issued with a form for registration along with Ext.P4.

3. According to the petitioner the activity of the petitioner is confined to the conduct of a Hotel and Bar where no loading or unloading work arises in the normal course of his business. The marginal loading or unloading work that arises in connection with his activity extends only for a maximum of one hour duration every two or three weeks. The said work is attended to by his permanent workers on a casual basis and forms part of their normal duties. Since the petitioner is not engaging any headload worker in his establishment, he is not an employee under the Act and is not liable to be registered. It is pointed out that as a matter of common knowledge the activity of conducting a hotel and bar does not necessitate attending to headload work. Any such work is rare and occasional, it is submitted.

4. Adv. Koshy George who appears for respondents 1 and 2 has filed a statement contending that the dispute in the present case was a dispute that comes within the scope of the definition of the said term contained in Section 2(h) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (the 'Act' for short). It is also contended that the petitioner is an employer coming within the definition of Section 2(i) of the Act. Since the Act itself has provided a machinery for resolving the disputes that arise under the Act, it is submitted that the petitioner has to res