The authority must not reject registration applications on the potential impact to pool workers, aligning with established legal principles.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are employees of the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent is engaged in retail and whole sale of cement. According to the petitioners, the business of the 3^rd respondent involves regular loading and unl0ading work and since the petitioners are permanent employees of the 3^rd respondent they are entitled to registration in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1981 Rules). However, the application filed by the petitioners for registration under 26A was rejected by the original authority by Ext.P4 order stating two reasons. The first reason stated was that at the time of inspection the original authority did not find any workers engaged in loading and unloading activities. The second reason stated was that the livelihood of pool workers will be affected if registration is granted to the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent vide Ext.P6 order rejected the appeal and further stated that loading and unloading work does not appear to be a regular work in the establishment of the 3^rd respondent. The Appellate Authority also concluded that the petitioners are not engaged in loading and unloading work.

2. The learned Government Pleader and Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent Board would submit that a perusal of documents produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P7 will indicate that the petitioners have never been engaged for loading and unloading work and they have been engaged in connection with other work of the establishment of the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted that the designation of the petitioners will also indicate that they are actually not engaged for any loading and unloading work. It is submitted that in such circumstances the petitioners were clearly not entitled to registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent supports the case of the petitioners and states that the petitioners have been engaged by him only for the purpose of loading and unloading work. It is also submitted that even nature of business of the 3^rd respondent will indicate that there will be regular loading and unloading work in the establishment of the 3^rd respondent.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for official respondents, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, I am of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as at least one of the reasons mentioned cannot be sustained in the light of law laid down by this court in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad ; 2022 (5) KLT 188 , where this court has taken the view that the authority while considering the applications for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules cannot reject the application on the ground that, livelihood of the pool workers might be affected. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and Exts.P4 and P6 orders are set aside. The applications filed by the petitioners for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules will stand restored to the file of the 2^nd respondent who shall reconsider the application also taking note of the law laid down by this court and after conducting necessary inspection. The 2^nd respondent shall endeavour to pass orders on the application within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The 2^nd respondent shall pass fresh orders without in any manner being influenced by the findings in Exts.P4 and P6.