Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.Nagaresh, J.
Raghul K.R And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary, (Labour & Skills Department) And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 30213 OF 2024
Decided On : 10-12-2024
(A) Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 - Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 - Registration of headload workers - Applications for registration rejected on grounds of non-maintenance of registers and non-commencement of business operations - Court held that applications can be submitted even before the establishment starts functioning, and rejection on these grounds is not legally justified. (Paras 18, 22, 24, 26)
(B) Employment - Requirement of registration - Court emphasized that a person seeking registration must first secure employment, and the registering authority must assess the requirement of headload workers even before commercial operations commence. (Paras 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, appointed as headload workers by SARASHH DISTRIBUTORS, challenged the rejection of their registration applications, arguing that the establishment had commenced operations and maintained necessary records.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection of applications was not legally justified and directed reconsideration of the applications.
Issues: The main issue was whether applications for registration can be submitted before the establishment starts functioning.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that applications for registration can be submitted prior to the commencement of business operations, and the registering authority must assess the need for headload workers.
Result: Writ petition allowed; orders set aside.
JUDGMENT :
N. NAGARESH, J.
Petitioners 1 to 3 state that they are appointed as headload workers by SARASHH DISTRIBUTORS, of which the 5th respondent is the Managing Partner. The Firm deals with life saving medicines, other pharmaceuticals and supplements. Most of the products dealt with by the Firm are fragile and sophisticated. The petitioners have undergone rigorous training for handling the products.
2. The petitioners submitted Exts.P7, P8 and P9 applications to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Labour Officer seeking registration as headload workers attached to the establishment of the 5th respondent, under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. On receipt of Exts.P7 to P9, the 2nd respondent visited the establishment premises on 27.04.2024. The petitioners and the 5th respondent were present in the premises. The 5th respondent gave a statement to the 2nd respondent to the effect that they require skilled labourers for handling fragile and sophisticated medicines. The 5th respondent stated that the petitioners are trained staff.
3. The 2nd respondent verified Exts.P1 to P3 appointment orders issued to the petitioners. Due to the delay in getting GST registration, the commencement of the business was delayed. The establishment had already obtained licence from the Local Self Government Institution. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the applications for registration filed by the petitioners stating that the establishment is not maintaining registers as required under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the Rules and that the establishment has not yet commenced business operations.
4. The petitioners state that the business of the establishment had commenced on 01.05.2024. The 5th respondent had maintained necessary records and registers. Ext.P13 is a register endorsed by the Assistant Labour Officer. Aggrieved by Ext.P10, the petitioners filed Ext.P14 appeal. The Appellate Authority-DLO dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P15 order.
5. The petitioners state that the 5th respondent had filed W.P.(C) No.22993/2024 seeking police protection. In Writ Appeal No.1089/2024 arising from the said writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Assistant Labour Officer to certify the consignments of sensitive and fragile goods. The Division Bench also directed that the petitioners should not be prevented from unloading those consignments. The police was directed to give adequate protection if necessary.
6. The petitioners state that the Assistant Drug Controller has issued Ext.P16 letter to the 5th respondent directing that all medicines handled by the 5th respondent must be managed only by trained staff. The Assistant Drug Controller issued Ext.P17 letter to the Assistant Labour Officer mentioning the fragile items which can be handled only by trained staff.
7. The petitioners challenge Ext.P15 order by which the appeals of the petitioners stand rejected. The rejection of their applications for registration as headload workers violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Rejection of their applications on the ground of non-maintenance of labour registers and non-commencement of business operations cannot be sustained. Rejection of their applications is only due to the undue influence and external political pressure, urged the petitioners.
8. The 4th respondent-Chairman, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 4th respondent submitted that the area in which the establishment situates is a Scheme operationalised area as per the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983. The 5th respondent did not maintain records and registers as required. Therefore, the 2nd respondent rejected the applications submitted by the petitioners.
9. The 4th respondent stated that the 5th respondent-employer had filed OS No.647/2024 in the 1st Additional Munsiff's Court. The 5th respondent obtained an interim injunction against th
AI
Applications for registration as headload workers can be submitted before the establishment starts functioning; rejection based on non-commencement of business is not legally justified.
Point of Law : If for working as a headload worker in a scheme covered area, registration under R.26A is mandatory, it defies logic as to how for registration under R.26A, respondents 1 and 2 can ins....
Attached headload workers have the right to registration under Rule 26A if they perform substantial loading-unloading work, regardless of pool workers' presence.
The judgment established the right of employees to obtain registration as headload workers, emphasizing the constitutional validity and reasonableness of the registration requirement.
An enquiry would be in line with the rights in connection with registration and employment of headload workers
Permanent employees in scheme-covered areas can apply for registration as headload workers under Rule 26A, and their applications should not be denied solely based on potential competition with pool ....
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 Constitu....
Employer's decision on the requirement of headload workers in an establishment cannot be faulted.
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 a....
The court allows further opportunity to petitioners for registration under specific labor rules, emphasizing importance of maintaining proper records.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
