Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
KUNHABDULLA Y.M – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 37913/2022
Registration - Headload Workers - Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1983; Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 - The court analyzed the registration process for attached headload workers and concluded that applications cannot be denied based on the existence of competition among pool workers or the non-functioning status of the employer's establishment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are headload workers, applied for registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Scheme after their employer's establishment completed all necessary legal requirements. Their applications were rejected on grounds related to the operational status of the establishment and competition with existing workers.
Issues: The key issue was whether the registration of headload workers could be denied on the basis of the establishment's operational status or competition from existing workers, with consideration given to the legal definitions and requirements in the relevant statutes.
Ratio Decidendi: An attached headload worker can apply for registration based on employment status rather than the operational status of the establishment, and competition from pool workers does not constitute a valid ground for the rejection of registration applications.
Final Decision: The court quashed the previous rejection orders and directed the registration of the petitioners as headload workers.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners 1 to 3 are attached headload workers employed exclusively in the 4th respondent's establishment for carrying out loading and unloading works. 4th petitioner is a partnership firm running their establishment engaged in the business of sale of cement, iron and steel and other allied products.
2. On 18.11.2022 separate applications in Form IX was submitted to the Assistant Labour Officer, Thalassery, Kannur for registration under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1983.
3. The 2nd respondent, Assistant Labour Officer after affording the opportunity and 3rd respondent, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board vide order dated 18.5.2022, Ext.P1 rejected the application of the petitioners for registration on the ground that the establishment of 4th petitioner had not started functioning. Aggrieved against the same, statutory appeals under Section 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981 were preferred which has been dismissed vide orders Ext.P2, P3 and P4 dated 13.9.2022 on the premise that it will affect the competitions amongst the other headload workers.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned observations of the appellate authority are wholly against the provisions of Article 14 of the constitution of India as well as the various judgments passed by this Court. In support of the aforementioned contentions has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court inKerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad M.B and others (2022 (5) KHC 367 (DB) wherein it has been held that there cannot be any bar for attached headload workers with the company as they have a special skill to perform, for registration.
5. Learned counsel representing the Welfare Fund Board and Government Pleader opposed the prayer and submits that until and unless unit starts, the registration cannot be sanctioned.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paperbook.
7. In the cited judgment, the Division Bench after considering the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, held as under:
23. Our analysis of the statutory scheme leads us to draw the following conclusions:
a. The definition of headloadworker under Section 2 (m) of the Act makes a distinction between an attached worker and an unattached worker. While the former is a person who is employed or engaged by an employer, either directly or through a contractor, to work in a particular establishment, the latter is a person who is not engaged to work in any particular establishment.
b. The attached worker, at the time of his employment or engagement need not be registered in terms of Rule 26A. It is sufficient that he is engaged for the purpose of doing headload work in the establishment. This is so even if the establishment is located in a scheme covered area because the 1983 Scheme does not apply to an attached worker. The unattached worker, however, has to be a registered headload worker in view of the specific provisions of Section 9A of the Act.
c. An attached worker must do headload work in the particular establishment to which he is attached, before seeking registration as a headload worker in terms of Rule 26A of the Rules. The enquiry contemplated under Rule 26A for granting registration is essentially a fact-finding exercise to ensure that the applicant for registration is actually doing headload work in the establishment concerned. The evidence in that regard must be found in the records maintained by the employer as mandated in Section 26 of the Act read with the Rules.
d. An unattached worker must first get himself attached to an establishment and do headload work therein. Only thereafter can he seek registration as a headload worker in terms of Rule 26A. The Act and Rules do not permit a person who is not attached to any establishment to apply for registration as a headload worker without first demonstrating his capacity to do h
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
