Compliance with statutory notice requirements under labor regulations is essential for granting worker registrations, with adherence affirming the legality of such decisions.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P3 order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Assistant Labour Officer, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram, respondent No.2 under R.26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 ('Rules, 1981' for short) and Exhibit P7 appellate order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the District Labour Officer, Malappuram, respondent No.1, under R.26C of the Rules, 1981 affirming Exhibit P3 order. As per Exhibit P3 order, registration was granted to respondent Nos. 5 to 11, who are attached to the 4th respondent establishment namely M/s. Malabar Pipes and Sheets, Manathumangalam, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 have submitted applications under R.26A of the Rules, 1981 before the Assistant Labour Officer, respondent No.2, which was allowed as per Exhibit P3 order dated 28.05.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred Exhibit P4 appeal dated 16.07.2014 before the District Labour Officer. The appeal was dismissed by the first respondent as per Exhibit P7 order dated 22.09.2014 holding that the appellants have not made out a case for interference with the order passed by the Assistant Labour Officer. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said orders, the writ petition is filed.

3. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioners is that Exhibit P3 order granting registration to respondent Nos. 5 to 11 was issued by the second respondent in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the registered Headload Workers of Pool No.4A functioning under the second petitioner being the persons aggrieved by the grant of registration to respondent Nos. 5 to 11, were entitled to be put to notice before granting registration to respondent Nos.5 to 11.

4. It is further contended that the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the Rules thereunder envisages a detailed enquiry before granting registration to a Headload worker. According to the petitioners, Exhibit P3 order was passed by the second respondent without conducting a proper enquiry by calling for necessary details from the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board, Malappuram, respondent No.3. That apart, it is submitted that Exhibit P7 order in appeal would reveal that the third respondent had failed in addressing the labour authorities that grant of registration to respondent Nos. 5 to 11 would result in depletion of the loading and unloading work available in the area, which was being shared among the 20 workers of Pool No.4A. That apart, it is contended that a perusal of Exhibit P7 order would reveal that the first respondent was literally carried away by the statement of a clerk attached to the office of the third respondent that the headload workers of the pool No.4A had a large area of operation namely the entire Perinthalmanna and certain areas of Angadippuram Panchayat.

5. It is further submitted that, relying solely on the said statement, the District Labour Officer came to an erroneous finding that since headload workers in Pool No.4A has a large area of operation, granting of registration to respondent Nos. 5 to 11 would be of no consequence. It is also pointed out that Exhibit P1 certificate issued by the third respondent would show that there are 222 registered headload workers under 20 pools within the Perinthalmanna Municipality and pool No.4A is one among the 20 pools of the headload workers. The sum and substance of the contention is that the above said crucial factual aspe