The court allows further opportunity to petitioners for registration under specific labor rules, emphasizing importance of maintaining proper records.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that the application for registration in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Rules') in respect of petitioners 2 to 6, who are stated to be employees of the 1^st petitioner, has been rejected by the original authority through Ext.P7 order dated 07-11-2022. It is stated that though the petitioners filed an appeal against Ext.P7 order, the appeal has also been rejected by Ext.P10 order dated 06-11-2024.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 1^st petitioner is the Proprietor of an establishment by name 'Puthenpurayil Traders', which is engaged in the wholesale marketing of note books, periodicals, confectioneries, drinking water, soft drinks etc. According to the petitioners since the nature of business engaged by the 1^st petitioner involves loading and unloading activities, petitioners 2 to 6 were engaged as permanent workers predominantly for the purposes of loading and unloading and other allied activities. Since the establishment is functioning in an area covered by the Kerala Headload Workers scheme, the petitioners approached the 1^st respondent seeking registration of petitioners 2 to 6 under Rule 26 A of the 1981 Rules. It is submitted that a perusal of Ext.P7 order of the 1^st respondent will indicate that practically the only reason stated for rejecting the application is that, proper registers were not maintained as contemplated by the provisions of the Rules. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority also did not find any other reason to reject the claim for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules, and confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority in a mechanical manner.

3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent board would vehemently contend that the pleadings in the writ petition itself indicate that petitioners 2 to 6 are not entitled to registration, as they have been admittedly engaged for work other than loading and unloading work, including sales. It is submitted that unless the employees are predominantly engaged for loading and unloading work, they are not entitled to registration in terms of Rule 26A of the Rules. It is submitted that the failure of the 1^st petitioner to maintain proper records also disentitles him from claiming that petitioners 2 to 6 are entitled to registration in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 26A of the Rules. It is submitted that the registers have not been placed on record before this Court and were also not produced before the Appellate Authority, despite the finding of the Original Authority that registration could not be granted on account of the failure to maintain the necessary records. It is submitted that this is fatal to the claim for registration, and the petitioners have, thus, not made out any case for interference with Exts.P7 or P10 orders.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit, in reply, that the petitioners have produced all necessary documents to establish that petitioners 2 to 6 were actually engaged in loading and unloading work, and this was the predominant work being done by them. It is submitted that merely because some incidental work was also carried out by petitioners 2 to 6, it cannot be said that they are not entitled to registration under Rule 26A of the Rules.

5. 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 3^rd respondent, I am