IMPORTANT POINT
The Act does not provide blanket protection to existing 'Pool workers' from further registration of other persons, and the Authorities must regulate any potential detriment to the 'Pool workers' in accordance with the applicable methods and relevant criteria.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners say that they have been offered permanent employment for loading and unloading works in a business establishment called “Nahlas Grant Hyper Mart”, in Thiruvananthapuram; and that they, therefore, applied for registration under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (‘Rules’ for short). They allege that, however, without considering any of the germane aspects in its relevant perspective, the Assistant Labour Officer (ALO) rejected their applications, merely saying that the business has not yet commenced; and further that, if any more persons are registered, the employment opportunities of the already registered workers, who are included in the statutory Pool, would suffer.

2. The petitioners contend that, since the afore reasons are factually and legally untenable, they preferred appeals, under Rule 26 C of the “Rules”, before the Deputy Labour Officer (DLO), who, however, has merely reiterated what has been stated in Ext.P6 and upheld it, while passing his final order, namely Ext.P10. They thus pray that both Exts.P6 and P10 be set aside.

3. Sri.G.Sreekumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that the factual findings in Exts.P6 and P10, that the business, where his clients propose to work had not commenced its operations, are untrue and recorded mischievously because, the statements given by them and the employer were to the specific effect that, it had been functioning much before their applications had been preferred. He submitted that this is substantiated by Exts.P3 and P4, which are the GST Registration Certificate and the Receipt issued by the Grama Panchayat to the establishment, as also from Ext.P5 Building Permit obtained by it; and hence, that Exts.P6 and P10 are in gross error. He then argued that, as far as the second reason in the impugned orders -namely that the already registered “Pool workers” would suffer, if other persons are allowed registration as “attached workers” -this has been already answered by this Court in several judgments that the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (‘Act’ for short) do not provide for any such protection, but is only intended to regulate. He, thus, reiteratingly prayed that Exts.P6 and P10 be quashed and the competent Authority be directed to offer registration to his clients forthwith.

4. In response, however, Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent -Headload Workers Board, submitted that the objections raised by them before the competent Authorities are valid because, if more and more people are allowed registration as “attached workers”, then the existing “Pool workers” would be severely prejudiced, on account of denuded opportunities and income.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader -Smt.Mable C.Kurian, also supported both Exts.P6 and P10, saying that the findings therein, that the business establishment was not operational, was based on a personal inspection by the ALO; and that the said Authority had thereafter given a statement before the DLO to such effect, when the appeal was decided by the latter. She then argued that, when there are existing “Pool workers” in the area, who are willing to carry on the loading and unloading activities for the establishment, further registrations are unnecessary; and that this has been correctly found by the Authorities in the impugned orders. She concluded her submissions, arguing that the ALO has also limpidly found that since the establishment was not functioning, none of the requisite records or registers were maintained by them; thus incapacitating any further enquiry. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of the various materials available on record.

7. As rightly argued by the parties, there are broadly two reasons cited by the Authorities in rejecting the applications for registration made by the petitioners.

8. For one, there is a factual finding that t