The court reaffirmed that economic concerns cannot be grounds for denying registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules when proper criteria are met.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P13 order of the Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor, and Ext.P19 appellate order of the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam, confirming Ext.P13 order. By Ext.P13 impugned order, the claim raised by the petitioners for registration under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), was rejected by the Assistant Labour Officer on the ground that the employer (5^th respondent) had not submitted certain forms and details and also on the ground that the grant of registration to the petitioners may result in loss of livelihood for the pool workers. It is not disputed before me that the area in question is a scheme covered area, and therefore, the petitioners can engage in loading and unloading work only after obtaining registration under Rule 26A of the Rules.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Ext.P13 itself records that necessary forms were submitted by the 5^th respondent (employer). It is submitted that going by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad M.B. ; 2022 (5) KLT 188, it is not open for the Assistant Labour Officer to conclude that registration under Rule 26A of the Rules could not be granted on account of the fact that the grant of registration may result in loss of livelihood for the pool workers.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the

4^th respondent would submit that while one of the reasons given by the Assistant Labour Officer, that the grant of registration may result in loss of livelihood for the pool workers, may not be sustainable in the light of the law laid down in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (supra), the fact remains that the 5^th respondent had failed to maintain necessary registers and submit necessary forms before the Assistant Labour Officer to conclude that the petitioners were entitled to registration under Rule 26A of the Rules.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent, I am of the view that, in the facts and circumstances noticed above, the matter has to be reconsidered by the Assistant Labour Officer (the 2^nd respondent).

6. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (supra). If, on a reconsideration of the matter, the 2^nd respondent the petitioners have satisfied all conditions for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules, such registration shall be granted to them. If any details are to be submitted by the 5^th respondent, it will be open to the 2^nd respondent to call for such details from the 5^th respondent for consideration of the claim raised by the petitioners. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, and it will be open to the 2^nd respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter, in accordance with the law, after keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (supra). In order to enable the reconsideration of the matter by the 2^nd respondent, Exts.P13 and P19 will stand set aside. The 2^nd respondent shall endeavour to pass fresh orders, as directed above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.