The court highlighted that contradictory findings in administrative decisions warrant reconsideration, ensuring just procedural outcomes for registration applications.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the applications submitted by petitioners 2 to 6 for registration in terms of Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules ,1981 (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules’), in respect of work undertaken by them in the proprietary concern of the 1^st petitioner, has been rejected stating that at the time of inspection by the Original Authority, namely the 3^rd respondent, though some of the applicants were present at site, they were not found engaged in any loading and unloading work.

2. It is the case of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 1^st petitioner is maintaining all records required to be maintained under law to establish that the petitioners 2 to 6 are actually engaged for loading and unloading work. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority, namely the 2^nd respondent, also confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent without going into and appreciating any contention taken by the petitioners before him. It is submitted that one of the reasons stated by the Appellate Authority is that the grant of registration will affect pool workers in the area.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent Board submits that in Exhibit P8 order of the Original Authority, there is a finding that the establishment of the 1st petitioner had not commenced functioning. It is submitted that, a registration under Rule 26A of the Rules could be granted only to persons engaged predominantly in loading and unloading work and when the establishment itself has not started functioning, it is not possible to grant any registration under Rule 26A, 4. Learned Government Pleader also supports the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Board.

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 4^th respondent Board, I am of the view that one of the reasons stated in the order of the Original Authority to deny registration was that the establishment itself had not started functioning while the other finding of the Original Authority is that the petitioners 2 to 6 were not found engaged in loading and unloading work. This order cannot be sustained as these two findings are contradictory to each other. Therefore, this matter has to be reconsidered by the Original Authority.

Accordingly, the writ petition will stand disposed of, directing that the 3 respondent shall reconsider the application submitted by the petitioners for registration. In order to enable reconsideration of the matter by the Original Authority, Exhibit P8 order of the Original Authority and Exhibit P1 order of the Appellate Authority are set aside. The applications filed by petitioners 2 to 6 for grant of registration under Rule 26A of the Rules shall be reconsidered by the 3^rd respondent, after a an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to all affected parties, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and any observations in this judgment is only for the purposes of understanding the contentions raised by the parties and shall not be treated as a finding by this Court on any point. In other words, it will be open to the 3^rd respondent to consider the matter afresh, in accordance with the law and untrammelled by any observations contained in this judgment.

Sd/-