K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The petitioner, a Pool Leader, is aggrieved by the registration of the 3rd respondent under R. 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (for brevity "the Rules"), as an attached headload worker of the additional 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent was before the original authority, the Assistant Labour Officer, with an application for registration under R.26A. The same was declined by Exhibits P1 and P2. An appeal was filed, wherein the appellate authority found that the employer has confirmed the employment of the 3rd respondent as an attached worker and, hence, the registration under S. 26A ought to be granted.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in Jnana Prakasam v. Natarajan (2002 (1) KLT 39) to contend that members of a pool within whose jurisdiction the establishment is situated, would be entitled to be heard before a registration is given to an attached worker. The learned counsel would specifically refer to paragraph 9 of the decision to contend that an "aggrieved person" includes the pool worker whose work will be affected if an establishment attaches/engages a regular headload worker. Paragraph 9 reads as under:

"The decision in this Appeal will rest upon the interpretation given to the words "any person aggrieved" in R. 26C(1). Going by the literal meaning, any person who considers himself aggrieved will be able to file an appeal. With regard to the question whether the existing workmen can be said to be persons aggrieved by the grant of registration to fresh workmen in an area, the learned Single Judge was of the view that they cannot be said to be persons aggrieved. The words "persons aggrieved" have been read down only to include persons who have a right of hearing at the time of registration of the workmen. Such persons are the applicants and the employers. In relation to registration of attached workmen who are employed in a particular shop, third parties cannot have any right of hearing or any right of appeal. In the case of registration of workmen in a particular area, at the first instance, "aggrieved persons" will include only the applicants and the contractors. But when it comes to the case of application by new workmen in an area where there are already a set of workmen, the interpretation given by the learned single Judge will not be correct. If in an area fresh workmen also enter, that will result in sharing the cake by more mouths resulting in depletion of the share of existing workmen. This will affect the livelihood of the existing workmen which is considered as a concomitant of the right of life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India."

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents, however, would rely on the very same decision to contend that a proper understanding of the aforecited decision would be that, for considering the grant of registration to an attached worker with respect to an independent establishment, only the establishment and the worker need be heard and that is this dictum which has been followed in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer (2010 (4) KLT 783). The learned counsel also refers to the following observation in Rajeev (supra):

"The result of the above discussion is that for a prospective headload worker to get registration under R. 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers' Rules, all what is required is physical ability to do headload work. As for registration as an attached worker an added condition is readiness of an employer to employ him as a headload worker."

4. An understanding of the afore-extracted paragraphs would show that any person aggrieved would be permitted to file an appeal from the order of the original authority registering an attached worker. That is not to say that a right is conferred on the already registered workers to be heard before the original authority passes an order. The aforecited decision specifically distinguishes a registration of an attached worker and the r