The judgment established the right of employees to obtain registration as headload workers, emphasizing the constitutional validity and reasonableness of the registration requirement.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioners are challenging the orders rejecting the application for registration as headload workers in the establishment of the fifth petitioner. The registering authority, as well as the Appellate Authority, rejected the applications filed by petitioners 1 to 4 for registration as headload workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (for short 'the Rules') for the reason that the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (for short 'the Board') had objected to the grant of registration.

2. On appeal, filed individually by petitioners 1 to 4, the Appellate Authority, by a common order dated 30.03.2021, rejected the appeal for three reasons :- (i) the service records, including the wages register and muster roll do not reflect the endorsement of the Assistant Labour Officer (ii) if registration is granted, it will affect the income of the Board and, (iii) granting registration will affect the employment opportunities and the income of the existing registered workers.

3. Alleging that the orders of both authorities are perverse and patently contrary to law, this writ petition is preferred seeking, inter alia, directions to the respondents for registration of petitioners 1 to 4 as headload workers attached to the fifth petitioner.

4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Board contending that the fifth petitioner is registered with the Board from 2017 onwards and that loading and unloading work in the establishment of the fifth petitioner is carried out by the registered workers of the pool under the Board. It was further pleaded that the establishment of the fifth petitioner was situated in an area covered by the headload workers welfare scheme and that if registration is granted as sought for, the same will destabilize the system. The third respondent thus sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri. Santhosh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Justin Jacob, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel for the third respondent.

6. This Court has already held in several decisions that the employer has a right to get his employees registered as headload workers under rule 26A of the Rules. The decisions Rajeev v. District Labour Officer (2010 (4) KLT 783) as well as in Manzoor v. District Labour Officer (2021 (5) KLT 554) are relevant in the above context. It was held in the aforecited decisions that, while considering the application for registration as headload workers under Rule 26A of the Rules, the Registering Authority's lookout is not whether the applicant was a headload worker or not prior to such registration, but whether the employer is willing to engage the applicant as a headload worker. It was further held that there was no requirement under law, that the applicant must have been working in the establishment as a headload worker for becoming eligible for such registration. The fact that the application was submitted by the workers themselves is evidence of the willingness of the workers to work as headload workers. The nature of work indulged in by the applicants, prior to the application, has no significance as the applicants could not have worked as headload workers or do headload work in a scheme covered area, without obtaining registration. The decision of the Division Bench in Gangadharan C.P. and Another v. Abdul Nasir and Others [2016 (5) KHC 238] is also relevant.

7. In another decision in Prasanna Kumar V. District Labour Officer (W.P.(C)No.6287 of 2021), it was observed by this Court as follows:

“In this context, it may be worthwhile to remind ourselves that 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 as provided for under Article 19(6). The work of loading and unloading is not a work that requires any specialised experience or technical or educational qualifications. Any person who is