IMPORTANT POINT
Attached headload workers have the right to registration under Rule 26A if they perform substantial loading-unloading work, regardless of pool workers' presence.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The 1st petitioner is doing business in Thodupuzha. The Shop deals with bio manure, pesticides, fertilizers and other general items necessary for agriculture, plantation and cultivation. The petitioner has wholesale and retail outlets and Godown. Goods bought from manufacturers/dealers are unloaded and stored at the Godown. Part of the goods are brought to the outlet. Goods are also delivered from the Godown and supplying at places required by the customers. The petitioners 2 to 6 are headload workers attached to the establishment of the petitioner.

2. The petitioners state that when the Headload Workers Scheme was operationalised in the area, the pool workers demanded entire loading unloading work of all establishments. There arose certain disputes and in a meeting convened by Merchants Association with all stakeholders, it was agreed that pool workers will be engaged for unloading the in-bound goods brought to godowns and shops. The rest of the work will be carried out by the attached workers of establishment owners.

3. The petitioners 2 to 6 applied for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. The Registering Authority, however, rejected the applications as per Ext.P43 order dated 01.11.2023. The petitioners thereupon filed Ext.P44 appeal. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as per Ext.P46 holding that loading- unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner is being done by the pool workers and grant of registration to attached workers will result in loss of employment to pool workers. The Appellate Authority further held that petitioners 2 to 6 are not doing predominantly loading-unloading work. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.43 order of the Registering Authority rejecting the applications for Rule 26A registration and the Ext.P46 order of the Appellate Authority rejecting their appeal.

4. Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the Standing Counsel representing the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board Office resisted the writ petition. The respondents pointed out that on site inspection by the Registering Authority, it was found that the loading-unloading work in the establishment is being carried out by the pool workers. The 1st petitioner had registered his establishment with the Headload Workers Welfare Board for availing the services of the pool workers. It was also found that petitioners 2 to 6 are doing the work of sales and that the occasional loading unloading work done by the petitioners is 2 to 6, is not the work predominantly done by them.

5. The respondents pointed out that in the judgment in Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2015 (1) KLT 485, this Court has held that if an employee is not doing predominantly loading and loading work, he cannot be brought within the definition of headload worker. Therefore, the Registering Authority as well as the Appellate Authority where justified in rejecting the application submitted by petitioners 2 to 6 for registration under Rule 26A. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, urged the respondents.

6. I have heard the learned Leonard counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 3rd respondent-Chairman of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board.

7. The petitioners state that petitioners 2 to 6 are headload workers attached to the establishment of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner is maintaining all relevant records which would indicate that the petitioners are headload workers attached to the establishment. There was an oral agreement between the Merchant Association and other stakeholders, whereby it was agreed that in-bound unloading work of the establishments would be carried out by the pool workers and the employers will be free to engage their attached workers for carrying out other loading-unloading works. Therefore, petitioners 2 to 6 are entitled to g