IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 24817 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

INDORA ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ABDUL AZEEZ P., AGED 50 YEARS PUNATHUMMAL COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, NADAPURAM, KALLACHI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE , S/O.ANDRU HAJI, RESIDING AT PUNATHIL HOUSE, POST PURAMERI, VIA VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673506.

BY ADV SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS:

1 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673506.

2 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER / APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS ACT OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673001.

3 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY / EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KUTTIADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673508.

R1 & R2 BY SR.GP.SMT.C.S.SHEEJA R3 BY ADV.SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the competent authorities under Rule 26A and 26C respectively of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the sale of tiles, cement, and plastic articles. The place where the godown is situated is a 'scheme-covered area'. The petitioner preferred applications under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. Respondent No.1 rejected the applications on the ground that there is no material to establish that the employees for whom registration is sought are actually employed. They were not found engaged in any loading and unloading works in the petitioner firm. As per order dated 13.03.2025 respondent No.1 (Assistant Labour Officer, Vatakara, Kozhikode) rejected the applications filed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 before the appellate authority under Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The appellate authority confirmed Ext.P3 order and passed Ext.P4 order.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Exts.P6 to P13 attendance reports and Exts.P14 to P18 Wage Registers, submitted that the workers for whom registration was sought were working in the petitioner firm. It is submitted that the competent authority did not give sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner failed to establish that the workers were actually engaged in the firm. It is submitted that when the Labour Officer inspected the premises of the firm the workers were not found.

6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 Board submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has not maintained relevant registers showing that the workers are engaged in loading and unloading work.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the genuineness of Exts.P6 to P18 is a matter to be established by the petitioner.

8. Having regard to the submissions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner shall be given further opportunity to lead evidence especially in view of the production of Exts.P6 to P18. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 orders stand set aside. The matter stands remitted to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to consider the genuineness of Exts.P6 to P18. The petitioner is at liberty to produce further evidence in the matter. Respondent No.1 shall consider the matter afresh and pass orders on the applications submitted by the petitioner, after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K.BABU Judge TKS APPEN