Point of Law : If for working as a headload worker in a scheme covered area, registration under R.26A is mandatory, it defies logic as to how for registration under R.26A, respondents 1 and 2 can insist that applicants who apply for registration under R.26A should be already headload workers working under the employer as proved by registers maintained as per Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioners are challenging the rejection of applications of petitioners 2 to 4 for registration as headload workers. First petitioner is the employer in whose establishment petitioners 2 to 4 claim to have worked as headload workers. By Ext.P5 order, the second respondent rejected Ext.P2, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 applications filed by petitioners 2 to 4 to be registered as headload workers. The appeal filed against the order of rejection was dismissed by Ext.P9. Apart from seeking to quash the impugned orders, petitioners have also sought for a direction to register petitioners 2 to 4 as headload workers and for issuance of identity cards to them.

2. First petitioner is the proprietor of a cashew packing unit at Kollam. The said establishment claimed to have employed permanent workers to carry out all work, including loading and unloading operations. Petitioners contend that when strangers started obstructing the work of loading and unloading in the first petitioner’s establishment, a writ petition was filed as W.P.(C) No. 41262 of 2017 and an interim order of police protection was obtained on 21.12.2017. Thereafter, with effect from 01.01.2018, the area where the first petitioner’s establishment was situated was brought under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (for short 'the Scheme') and hence by judgment dated 06.03.2018, this Court refused to continue the police protection and disposed of the writ petition after reserving the liberty of the petitioners to seek registration of their own workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (for short 'the Rules').

3. Subsequently, petitioners 2 to 4 applied for registration as headload workers as per Ext.P2, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4. By Ext.P5 order, their applications were rejected by the second respondent after observing that the workers are carrying out the work of sorting and packing and that they cannot be registered as headload workers. It was also observed that since the first petitioner did not have permanent headload workers, he can utilize the services of the registered headload workers of the area.

4. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was initially rejected. However, by judgment dated 13.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No.23315 of 2019, this Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and directed the District Labour Officer to reconsider and pass fresh orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioners. It was thereafter, that Ext.P9 order was issued by the first respondent dismissing the appeal. It is observed in Ext.P9 that, petitioners who sought registration are not employed as headload workers as per the enquiry, and hence they cannot be registered as headload workers. It is also stated that the establishment was lying closed for the last five months.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent stating that the establishment comes within the Scheme area and also that the area has permanent headload workers, who are registered under Rule 26A of the Rules, while petitioners 2 to 4 are not headload workers having any registration or identity cards. It is reiterated that the establishment of the first petitioner is situated in a pool area where there are sufficient numbers of registered headload workers and that there was no need for issuance of further identity cards. It is also stated that petitioners 2 to 4 are the employees of the first petitioner, and no one other than registered headload workers can be permitted to do headload work in a prescribed area.

6. In the statement filed by the third respondent it was stated that, there was no irregularity or illegality in the orders impugned and that petitioners 2 to 4 were not principally employed for headload works in the establishment of the first petitioner and hence they will not come within the purview of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act').

7. A reply affidavit has been filed by the first petitioner refuting the cont