JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court by laying challenge to the orders Ext.P6 dated 07.03.2022 and an appellate order dated 10.05.2022 Ext.P7 passed by the Assistant Labour Officer and District Labour Officer respectively rejecting the application of the petitioner for registration of four headload workers as per Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that the petitioner company is registered under the provision of the Indian Companies Act and conducting a hyper market business. It has already started two hyper markets in Kozhikode district and had taken on lease a building in Kalpetta Municipality, Wayanad district for starting the hyper market business. Necessary permissions from all the other statutory authorities have already been taken. For carrying out the aforementioned activity, had appointed four permanent workers for doing the loading and unloading work within the aforementioned business premises, who are all experienced. All of them had submitted application for registration as evidenced from Exts.P1 to P4 respectively.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the provision for registration of the permanent worker is provided under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. Since the respondents did not consider the application, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.(C).No.4561/2022 and this Court vide judgment dated 11.02.2022 Ext.P5 directed the authority to decide the application within 45 days. The aforementioned application has been dismissed on the ground that comments from the Board that the area is scheme covered area has not been received and since the hyper market had not been set up, there was no need for issuance of new identity cards for loading and unloading workers as it will cause reduction of employment opportunity to the registering workers. The aforementioned reasoning according to reservation is against the dicutm of this Court rendered in W.P.(C).No.27087 of 2020 decided on 23.09.2021.

4. Sri.Joshy Thannikamattom accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri.Abraham Thomas accepts notice for respondent No.3.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.3 that the view of the board that the area in question is a scheme covered area, is required to be given but however did not receive intimation from the concerned officer, which lead to an observation in the order of having not submitted the reply, but do not deny the judgment on the issue as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

7. While considering the similar controversy, this Court in paragraph 11 to 15 of the judgment dated 23.9.2021 in W.P(C).27087/2020 had given the following observation:

11. The reason for rejecting the application of petitioners 2 to 4 for registration as headload workers is stated as when the second respondent inspected the employer's establishment on 06.09.2018 he could not find any headload worker, as contemplated under the Act and that petitioners 2 to 4 were employed for other works in the packing section. The said reason defies logic and is irrational. To be a headload worker as contemplated under the Act, one must be a registered

headload worker. A worker is not treated as a headload worker unless he is registered under the Act. After the scheme is made applicable to the area from 01-01-2018, first petitioner cannot engage any person for headload work, other than registered headload worker. Thus on the date of inspection, Le., on 06.09.2018, there could never have been any workman of the petitioner engaged for doing the work of loading and unloading in the establishment of the petitioner. The reason stated by the respondents to reject the application for registration of petitioners 2 to 4 as headload workers in the first petitioner's establishment is to say the least puerile. The respondents' reasoning to re