Entitlement of existing workers to appeal against registration decisions and insufficiency of evidence in appellate authority's findings.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge Ext.P4 order issued by the 2^nd respondent appellate authority in an appeal filed by the 4^th respondent herein against a registration granted by the 3^rd respondent under the provisions of Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”).

2. The 6^th petitioner unit herein is the employer in question. Petitioners 1 to 5 are stated to be in the rolls of the 6^th petitioner herein. The 6^th petitioner, it is not in dispute, is situated in a Scheme covered area. Petitioners 1 to 5 were arrayed by the 6^th petitioner herein, for issuing cards under the provisions of Rule 26A of the Rules. The 3^rd respondent herein issued Ext.P1 order dated 10.04.2017, finding that petitioners 1 to 5 have been carrying on the activity of the headload work at the 6^th petitioner unit herein and hence, if registration is being extended to the said petitioners, that may not be causing any loss of employment to others, especially when the 6^th petitioner unit is carrying on the activities in an enclosed compound. The 4^th respondent herein chose to file a further appeal against the findings in Ext.P1 order, as evidenced by Ext.P2 before the appellate authority. The 6^th petitioner - the employer - also filed its objections as evidenced by Ext.P3.

3. The matter was considered by the appellate authority, leading to the issuance of Ext.P4 order dated 02.02.2018. The appellate authority, upon enquiry, found that petitioners 1 to 5 were not employed in the unit in question. Therefore, they are not entitled for any registration, especially when a dispute as regards the claim of other headload workers was pending. Finding thus, the appeal filed by the 4^th respondent came to be allowed by the order at Ext.P4.

4. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners herein.

5. I have heard Sri.N.Sukumaran, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri.Vinay Kumar Varma, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Koshy George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent herein.

6. The learned senior counsel Sri.N.Sukumaran would contend that the findings in Ext.P4 are illegal and arbitrary for the following reasons:

i. According to him, the 4^th respondent herein has no power or authority for filing an appeal against the order at Ext.P1, as he is not at all an “affected party” so as to entertain an appeal.

ii. He would further contend that, going by the findings in Ext.P1, the registration granted to petitioners 1 to 5 is perfectly legal and the 2^nd respondent was not justified in having found that petitioners 1 to 5 were not working with the unit in question.

7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent would contend that:

i. Going by the Scheme of Rule 26A, it was incumbent on the part of the registering authority to have issued a notice to the Board (the 4^th respondent) and in that view of the matter, the 4^th respondent was justified in having filed an appeal against the afore findings at Ext.P1.

ii. He would further contend with reference to paragraph 21 of the Scheme that the committee concerned is the 4^th respondent herein and therefore, the 4^th respondent was justified in having filed an appeal. He would further add that on account of the order at Ext.P1, various other headload workers are affected and that is why the 4^th respondent has chosen to file an appeal.

8. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records. This Court notices that two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition.

9. The first is