Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35500
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
SHIBU GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 16661/2024
P.R.VENKATESH, ASHA P.KURIAKOSE, LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R., REJITHA RAJAN, SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SMT.MABLE C KURIAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The denial of registration as headload workers based on potential income loss to pool workers is unjustified; actual engagement in headload work must be established for registration under Rule 26A.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Headload Workers Act - Rule 26A - Registration of headload workers - Petitioners sought registration as headload workers but were denied due to the establishment being in a Scheme covered area - The court found that the denial was unsustainable as the petitioners were engaged in headload work - The court emphasized that the inquiry under Rule 26A is a fact-finding exercise to ensure actual engagement in headload work. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) The court noted that marginal loss of income to pool workers cannot justify denial of registration under Rule 26A, as attached workers have a fundamental right to carry on any occupation. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, employees of a poultry farm, sought registration as headload workers but were denied due to existing pool workers. The Assistant Labour Officer found no substantial loading work that could not be done by pool workers.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the denial of registration was unsustainable and directed reconsideration of the applications.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were engaged in headload work and the justification for denying their registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inquiry under Rule 26A must confirm actual engagement in headload work, and marginal loss of income to pool workers cannot be a reason to deny registration.
Result: Orders set aside; applications for registration to be reconsidered.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The 1st petitioner is running a poultry farm.
Petitioners 2 and 3 are employees of the 1st petitioner. The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Exts.P2, P6 and P7 orders and to direct the 2nd respondent-Assistant Labour Officer to register petitioners 2 and 3 as headload workers attached to the establishment of the 1st petitioner.
2. The petitioners state that petitioners 2 and 3 are employees of the 1st petitioner. They are capable of doing the work of headload workers in the establishment. The loading and unloading work in the establishment mostly happen during midnight. Therefore, it has become essential for the 1st petitioner to get the loading and unloading work in his establishment carried out by his own employees.
3. Petitioners 2 and 3 along with two others submitted applications under Rule 26A seeking registration as attached headload workers. The Assistant Labour Officer rejected the applications as per Ext.P2 order dated 16.10.2023. The applications were rejected for the reason that the establishment falls in a Scheme covered area and pool workers are carrying out the work at present.
4. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P3 appeal before the District Labour Officer. Petitioners 2 and 3 filed Exts.P4 and P5 appeals. Exts.P3 to P5 stand rejected by Exts.P6 and P7 orders of the District Labour Officer. The District Labour Officer noted that establishment falls within a Scheme implemented area and grant of registration to petitioners 2 and 3 and others would result in complete exclusion of pool workers from the work, resulting in loss of their income.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the reasons stated in Exts.P2, P6 and P7 are against the decisions of this Court and hence those orders are liable to be quashed by directing the 2nd respondent-ALO to register petitioners 2 and 3 as headload workers and issue identity cards to them forthwith.
6. The respondents resisted the writ petition. The respondents pointed out that when the Assistant Labour Officer inspected the premises, no Registers were found in the establishment as required under various Labour Laws. Petitioners 2 and 3 are not bona fide headload workers of the 1st petitioner. Grant of headload workers registration to petitioners 2 and 3 would adversely affect the income of the pool workers.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
8. Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the 2nd respondent- ALO rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioners. Ext.P2 would indicate that petitioners 2 and 3 have stated that they do the loading and unloading work in respect of the chickens unloaded by the pool workers and it is they who load the empty boxes on the vehicle. They are getting ₹720/- per day. The 1st petitioner also stated that the applicants for registration are doing loading and unloading work in his establishment.
9. The ALO found that the 1st petitioner is engaging workers registered under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, who are members of Pool Nos.1A, 2. Grant of registration to the applicants would result in loss of income to the pool workers. The ALO also found that there is no large amount of loading and unloading work which cannot be done by the pool workers. The 1st petitioner has not maintained the requisite Registers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act . On these grounds, the 2nd respondent rejected the applications.
10. In Appeal, the 1st respondent-appellate authority held that the establishment of the 1st petitioner is situated in an important locality coming under the jurisdiction of the Headload Workers Welfare Board. The District Labour Officer noted that the appellants/applicants as also the pool workers are doing loading and unloading work in the establishment at present. If registration
