Point of Law - Every person has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on any occupation and the same can be subjected only to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

The dispute on registration of permanent employees of an establishment as headload workers, in areas covered by the scheme, notified under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 once again arises for deliberation of this Court, through these two cases.

2. The permanent employees of an establishment have approached this Court challenging the orders rejecting their applications for registration as headload workers. The employer has filed another writ petition challenging the very same orders rejecting his employees' applications for registration as headload workers. Both these writ petitions are considered and disposed of by this judgment.

3. W.P.(C) No.19841 of 2019 is filed by seven employees of an establishment belonging to the third respondent in the writ petition, while W.P.(C) No.19896 of 2019 is filed by the employer. W.P.(C) No.19841 of 2019 is treated as the leading case and hence the facts of the said case alone are narrated.

4. Petitioners claim to be employed as permanent loading and unloading workers under the third respondent, who carries on the business of sale of sanitary wares, hard wares and other products under the name ‘Steel World’. Petitioners applied to the first respondent on 20.01.2018 for registration as headload workers and for issuance of identity cards under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act') and Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (for short 'the Rules'). Pursuant to directions from this Court, in W.P.(C) No.7605 of 2018, the first respondent issued Ext.P1 order rejecting petitioners' applications. The applications were rejected, stating that the establishment of the employer is situated in a scheme covered area and the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (for short 'the Board') had objected to the grant of registration and further that there was no satisfactory material to show that the workers are employed as headload workers in the establishment of the third respondent.

5. In the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the second respondent by its order dated 25.03.2019 rejected the appeal, practically reiterating the order of the original authority. In the appellate order, it was stated that, the petitioners were not engaged in the works of the establishment and that the existing registered workers of the pool would be prejudiced since there were only limited opportunities for the existing workers to do the headload work and that the Board had agreed that the establishment shall supply the required headload workers on payment of the charges fixed in accordance with law.

6. The aforementioned two orders are impugned in these writ petitions. Sri. Nirmal V.Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that rejection of the petitioners' applications was perverse warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submitted that the reasoning of the first and second respondents was patently incorrect apart from being unsustainable. The learned counsel relied upon the decision in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police (1998 (2) KLT 732) Rajeev v. District Labour Officer (2010 (4) KLT 783) as well as in Manzoor v. District Labour Officer (2021 (5) KLT 554) and submitted that the reasoning adopted by respondents 1 and 2 were legally unsustainable and not sufficient to reject the applications. Adv. Aneesh James appearing for the employer supported the arguments of the petitioner.

7. Smt.Sabeena P. Ismail, the learned Government Pleader and Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel for the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board, on the other hand, submitted that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference since the objection of the Board was specifically raised in the instant case. According to the learned Standing Counsel, other things remaining the same, when the Welfare Board objects to the registration, the assessing officers cannot grant registration. Learned Standing Counsel further invited the attention of