JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a firm represented by the Manager conducting business in dealership of TMT steel bars and is covered in a scheme of area promulgated under the Kerala Head load Workers Act ie., Pool No.16. The aforementioned business activity is being carried on since 2013 and all the materials loaded and unloaded from trucks are undertaken in time bound manner. It had taken 14 employees for doing the aforementioned work and had attached the aforementioned workers as per the provisions of Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. This process had never taken the assistance of the pool workers. Respondent No.2, Assistant Labour Commissioner on receipt of the application, conducted a detailed enquiry in respect of the workers employed by the petitioner and passed an order under Rule 26A on 9.11.2021 whereby identity cards to 14 workers was issued, Ext.P1.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the employer was flabbergasted to receive a notice from the appellate authority in respect of an appeal preferred by the Union against the aforementioned order and the main contention of the Union was that it would truncate their income and thus would be taking away their livelihood as prescribed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. The aforementioned appeal was contested by the petitioner but the appellate authority for the reasons best known has set aside the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 9.11.2021 and the sole ground for setting aside the order is of reduction of the income of the members of the Union. In support of the contention relied upon the judgment of this Court Brijesh John and Ors v. Assistant Labour Officer and Ors. (2022 1 KHC 58).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order and submitted that under the garb of registration of employees, the establishment is replacing the employees without giving the details of the same and also it would affect the business of the income of the members.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that the impugned order Ext.P5 dated 20.4.2022 of the first respondent, District Labour Officer entertaining the appeal under Section 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules is wholly erroneous and arbitrary. On perusal of the aforementioned order, it reveals that the Union had preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Labour Officer whereby the workers carrying on the special and particular activity of loading and unloading of the steel bars were registered and the registration of the workers had been cancelled purely on the ground that of identity as well as curtailment of their income. The said reasoning assigned by the appellate authority is wholly against the dictum of this Court in Brijesh John's case wherein paragraph 6 to 13 held as under:

“6. This Court has already held several decisions that the employer has right get his employees registered headload workers under 26A Rules. The decisions Rajeev District Labour Officer (2010 (4) 783) as well as in Manzoor v. District Labour 554) relevant the above context. was held the aforecited decisions while the application registration headload workers under Rule 26A the Rules, the lookout is not whether the applicant a headload worker or prior such registration, but whether employer is willing to engage the applicant a headload It was further held that there no requirement under law, that the applicant must have been working the establishment headload worker for becoming eligible for registration. The fact that the application submitted the workers themselves the willingness of workers to work as headload workers. nature of work indulged the applicants, prior the application, has significance as the applicants could have worked headload workers do headload work in scheme covered area, without obtaining registration. decision the Division Bench in Gangadharan C.P. Another v. Abdul Nasi