Rejection of worker registration applications based on unsupported grounds is unsustainable; remand for reconsideration is warranted.

JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P17 order of the 3^rd respondent rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for registration of workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (in short ‘the Rules’) and Ext.P19 order of the 2^nd respondent rejecting an appeal filed against Ext.P17 order.

2. The application filed by the petitioners for registration of its workers under Rule 26A was rejected by the 3^rd respondent inter alia for the following reasons:-

1) At the time of inspection, no workers were found engaged in loading and unloading work.

2) No proper records have been maintained by the petitioners relating to engagement of workers for loading and unloading work.

3) If registration is granted, there will be loss of work for the pool workers and

4) If registration is granted, there will be law and order situation.

The appeal filed before the 2^nd respondent was rejected stating that in the absence of material to show at the time of inspection that the petitioners have actually engaged workers for loading and unloading work and in the absence of proper records, the petitioners are not entitled to obtain registration under Rule 26A of the Rules.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that reasons 3 and 4 mentioned by the 3^rd respondent cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad M.B [ 2022(5) KLT 188 ] found that an application for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules cannot be rejected on the ground that grant of registration will effect pool workers. It is submitted that similarly, the fact that there might be a law and order situation is also not a relevant consideration for rejecting the application for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. It is submitted that the other two reasons mentioned by the 3^rd respondent also cannot be sustained as the petitioners had produced all necessary documents to show that the workers in question had been engaged for the purposes of loading and unloading work. It is submitted that the finding that at the time of inspection, no workers were found engaged in loading and unloading work is a finding rendered only for the purpose of rejecting the application for registration. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority also failed to appreciate that the petitioners had maintained all necessary records and the registration was sought only in respect of workers engaged for actual loading and unloading work.

4. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board vehemently oppose the grant of any relief to the petitioners. It is pointed out that it is the duty of the petitioners to maintain registers and other documents as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules to establish that they had engaged workers of their own for loading and unloading work. It is submitted that in the absence of proper records, it will not be possible for the registering authority to consider the question as to whether the petitioners have made out a case for grant of registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. It is submitted that while the loss of work to pool workers cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for registration, the other grounds cited by the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority indicate that the petitioners are not entitled to registration.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board, I am of the opinion that the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of regis