Applications for registration as headload workers can be submitted before the establishment commences operations; rejection based on non-commencement of business is legally unjustified.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners 1 to 3 state that they are appointed as headload workers by SARASHH DISTRIBUTORS, of which the 5^th 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 2^nd respondent-Assistant Labour Officer seeking registration as headload workers attached to the establishment of the 5^th respondent, under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981. On receipt of Exts.P7 to P9, the 2^nd respondent visited the establishment premises on 27.04.2024. The petitioners and the 5^th respondent were present in the premises. The 5^th respondent gave a statement to the 2^nd respondent to the effect that they require skilled labourers for handling fragile and sophisticated medicines. The 5^th respondent stated that the petitioners are trained staff.

3. The 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 5^th 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 5^th 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 5^th respondent directing that all medicines handled by the 5^th 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 4^th respondent-Chairman, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 4^th 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