Existing headload workers in non-Scheme areas lack the right to appeal against new registrations, distinguishing their rights from those in Scheme areas.

JUDGMENT

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

A Division Bench of this Court referred a question of law for consideration by a Full Bench, doubting the declaration of a Division Bench in Jnana Prakasam v. Natarajan , [ 2002 (1) KLT 39 ], which reversed the judgment of a Single Judge in Arogyaswamy v. District Labour Officer [ 2000 (3) KLT 676 ]. The referring Bench agreed with the proposition in Arogyaswamy [supra] that existing cardholders under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 [for brevity, 'the Rules of 1981'] would not have a right of appeal under Rule 26C of the Rules of 1981 against a fresh registration granted under Rule 26A of the Rules of 1981. According to the referring Bench, the existing cardholders would have to approach the Registering Authority under sub-rule (4) of Rule 26A of the Rules of 1981.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ajith Prakash argued for the position that the appeal, which led to the impugned order, is not maintainable and the opinion of the referring Bench has to be upheld. On facts it is submitted that respondents 4 & 5 representing the existing Rule 26A cardholders, opposed the registration granted to the 27 appellants only by reason of inter-union rivalry. The appellants have sought and were registered in the area Nochiyoor under specific employers, details of whom have been extracted in the identity cards issued as seen from Ext.P1. The party respondents represent the existing cardholders in a totally different area as is seen from Ext.P4. The remedy if at all available to the existing registered workers against a new registration is under Rule 26A(4) of the Rules of 1981. There could not have been an appeal filed under Rule 26C. Registration under Rule 26A is of a headload worker, the definition of which figures under Section 2(m) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978.

3. Reliance is placed on Rajeev v. District Labour Officer [ 2010 (4) KLT 783 ] to contend that for seeking registration under Rule 26A, there is no requirement that an applicant should be an existing headload worker. If it were otherwise, none who chooses such work as his avocation for the first time, would be entitled to get registration. The scheme of the enactment is that a headload worker in a non-Scheme area need not necessarily take registration under Rule 26A. But when a Scheme is introduced in the area, only existing Rule 26A workers would be entitled to apply for registration under the Scheme for issuance of Rule 6A cards under the Kerala Headload Workers [Regulation of Employment and Welfare] Scheme, 1983 ['Scheme of 1983' for brevity]. When a Scheme is implemented, even an attached worker, who works under a particular employer, would have to take registration under Rule 26A.

4. At the time of registration the only persons, who are to be issued with notice, are the employee, the employer or employers specified and the Chairman of the Welfare Board Local Committee. The Local Committee, only if the area is Scheme covered. The learned Counsel would clearly draw a distinction between the Scheme covered areas and non-Scheme areas. Insofar as the unattached workers, registered under Rule 26A in Scheme covered areas, who are also assigned to specific Pools, they would be entitled to file an appeal under Rule 26C against an order granting a fresh registration under Rule 26A. This is so since the Local Committee represents such Pool members before the Registering Authority. In the case of non-Scheme areas, if the registered workers are allowed to object to each and every fresh registration, that would lead to infringeme