IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the rejection of registration applications cannot be based on the protection of 'pool workers' unless specifically provided for by the Statute.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioners call into question the correctness of Ext.P6 order of the 2nd respondent- Assistant Labour Officer, which has been confirmed in Appeal by the 1st respondent- Divisional Labour Officer, Kannur, through Ext.P8. They assert that both the impugned orders are erroneous and have been issued without proper application of mind; and therefore, that they are liable to be set aside.

2. Sri. R. Sudhish - learned counsel for the petitioners, explained that his clients are permanent employees of the 4th respondent and that they applied for registration under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short), making applications under Rule 26A thereof. He pointed out that, instead of considering these applications on merits, both the 1st and 2nd respondents rejected them, merely saying that its approval would cause loss of employment to the already registered ‘pool workers’ in the area. He argued that this is impermissible and would foster protectionism, which is not allowable under the provisions of the Statutory Scheme. He added that the area where the 4th respondent is carrying on business is not covered by any Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), though it has been so stated in Exts.P6 and P8 and thus reiteratingly prayed that the said orders be set aside and the 2nd respondent be directed to reconsider the applications of his clients, in terms of law.

3. Sri. K.S. Arun Kumar - learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, however, argued that there is no error in Exts.P6 or P8 because, if applications of persons like the petitioners are considered and allowed in an indiscriminate manner, it would cause prejudice to the already registered ‘pool workers’ maintained by his client. He added that it is not a case of protectionism, but a matter of caution that the lives of the existing workers be not detrimentally affected. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

4. Smt. C.S. Sheeja - learned Government Pleader, adopted the afore submissions of Sri. Arun Kumar, supplementing it, saying that the Authorities have found that the 4th respondent-employer of the petitioners has not maintained necessary registers and other documents. She argued that, therefore, the petitioners cannot assail Exts.P6 and P8; vehemently asserting that the reasons stated therein are wholly tenable.

5. I notice from the files that the summons issued to the 4th respondent has not yet returned. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said entity travels along with his clients - they being their employees - and therefore, that they would have nothing to speak against them.

6. I have examined the impugned orders in this Writ Petition.

7. When one goes through Ext.P8, which is the order of the Appellate Authority - namely the 1st respondent, the reasons stated by him, while confirming Ext.P6, is that the area where the 4th respondent is carrying on business is covered by a Scheme under the ‘Act’ and that the 3rd respondent-Board has raised an objection against the registration of the petitioners, saying that their already registered members would be prejudiced.

8. However, as I have already indited, the specific case of the petitioners is that the area in question is not covered by a Scheme under the ‘Act’ but, this has been found against them, and it is a factual finding.

9. Coming to the second limb of the reasons in Ext.P8, the Appellate Authority has entered an affirmative opinion, as recorded in Ext.P6, that if the petitioners are to be given registration, it may cause loss of employment to the already registered ‘pool workers’.

10. Prima facie, I cannot understand the purport of this finding because, unless the Statute provides for protection of the ‘pool workers’ in any manner, an application made by the permanent worker of a business canno