The Appellate Authority's failure to conduct inspections does not justify cancellation of registration; due process requires verification and reassessment.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the Appellate Authority setting aside Ext.P3 order of the Registering Authority granting registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), to petitioners 2, 3 and 4, who are stated to be headload workers of the 1^st petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that a reading of Ext.P6 order would indicate that the reason found by the Appellate Authority to set aside Ext.P3 order of the Original Authority is mainly that the Original Authority did not carry out necessary inspections and did not verify the various records before granting registration to petitioners 2, 3 and 4. It is submitted that if the Appellate Authority had reached the conclusion that the Original Authority had not conducted the necessary inspections and verified the records, it was open to the Appellate Authority to undertake such exercise itself, as the powers of the Appellate Authority are coextensive with that of the Original Authority and the order setting aside the registration granted to petitioners 2, 3 and 4 was not justified. It is submitted that the order setting aside the registration granted to petitioners 2, 3, and 4 and directing that the loading and unloading work at the 1^st petitioner-establishment be carried out by pool workers is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner maintains all necessary records to establish that petitioners 2, 3, and 4 are engaged mainly in loading and unloading work and are therefore entitled to registration under Rule 26A of the Rules.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

4^th respondent would submit that even the records produced along with the writ petition will indicate that petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are not engaged in loading and unloading work. It is submitted that unless it could be shown that petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are engaged predominantly for loading and unloading work, they are not entitled to registration under Rule 26A of the Rules, and the loading and unloading work will have to be done through the pool workers. It is submitted that it is evident from a reading of the order of the Appellate Authority that the Registering Authority had granted registration without there being a proper inspection and without ascertaining the correct facts and without determining as to whether all the necessary records had been maintained by the 1^st petitioner. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, there is absolutely no illegality in Ext.P6 order of the Appellate Authority.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

5. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 5^th respondent.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent Board, I am of the view that Ext.P6 order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority. A reading of the order of the Appellate Authority will indicate that the Appellate Authority had concluded that the registration granted to petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are liable to be set aside for the reason that the Original Authority had neither conducted the necessary inspections nor had verified the records properly before granting registration. While it was open to the Appellate Authority to reach such a conclusion, the course of action to be adopted by the Appellate Authority in such circumstances would be to call upon the petitioners to produce necessary documents and other materials to show that the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 were actually engaged predominantly for the purposes of loading and unloading work. The Appellate Authority could not have cancelled the registration and directed that the loa