Denying registration for headload workers based on potential impacts on existing workers' employment is legally untenable; established employment rights are paramount.

JUDGMENT

The prayers in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-

“i) issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order, set aside Ext.P3 and P5 orders;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent No. 2 to allow Ext.P2 application and register the five ‘attached headload workers’ of the petitioner’s establishment under Rule 26A of the ‘Kerala Headload Workers Rules’, at the earliest, at any rate within a time limit as fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent No. 2 to allow Ext.P4 appeal, at the earliest at any rate within a time limit as fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iv) to number the case by dispensing the translation of the documents produced by the petitioner in vernacular language; and v) pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and necessary in the interests of justice.“

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm under the name and style ‘Design 4 Tiles and Granite’ doing business mainly of building materials like granite, tile and sanitary items etc. The petitioner engaged its own five ‘attached headload workers’ for loading and unloading materials. As per Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (‘the Rules’), the petitioner submitted an application before Respondent No.3, the registering authority under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (‘the Act’), seeking registration of the five attached headload workers. Along with the application, the petitioner produced the relevant documents showing that the workers are engaged in loading and unloading activities. The registering authority considered the application and rejected it, as per Ext.P3 order, on the ground that granting registration to the workers sought to be registered would affect the employment opportunities of the existing registered pool workers.

3. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 order by filing an appeal under Rule 26C of the Rules before the District Labour Officer (respondent No.2). The District Labour Officer, as per Ext.P5, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the workers belonged to Rajasthan and there is nothing to show that they are employed in the petitioner firm as headload workers. These two orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground relied on by the registering authority that granting the attached workers registration would affect the employment opportunities of the existing registered pool workers in the area is not legally tenable. The learned counsel submitted that the constitutional right of the workers who sought registration cannot be denied merely for the reason that somebody else may have to adjust with the available work. The learned counsel relied on Gangadharan C.P. v. Abdul Nasir [ 2016 (4) KLT 592 ]

in support of his contention.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the ground relied on by the District Labour Officer, the appellate authority, that there was nothing to show that the workers were not employed or engaged to do any headload work at present is contrary to the documents relied on by the petitioner before the registering authority. The learned counsel submitted that the registering authority before whom the petitioner gave evidence did not have a case that the workers for whom the registration is sought were not employed or engaged to do any headload work in the petitioner establishment. It is submitted that the finding of the District Labour Officer is against the materials p