The failure to provide affected workers the opportunity to be heard before issuing identity cards contravenes principles of natural justice, necessitating reconsideration of applications.

J U D G M E N T

[WP(C) Nos.6844/2023, 14343/2022, 16138/2023, 16194/2023, 25471/2023]

These writ petitions are with reference to the requirement for issuance of identity cards under the provisions of Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981 (for short, “Rules”), as regards an outlet of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation at Mandankavu in Koyilandy Taluk in Kozhikode District. The Kerala State Beverages Corporation was having a depot at Vellayil in Kozhikode District. The Government decided to start “new warehouses” for the Corporation, out of which one was at Mandankavu referred to above. The Corporation was using the services of the headload workers for carrying out the loading/unloading activities in their depots, including the one at Vellayil. Upon the starting of the new outlet as above, some of the locals of the Mandankavu sought to file applications under the provisions of Rule 26A of the Rules. Simultaneously, they also approached this Court by preferring W.P.(C) No.14343 of 2022, pointing out that they have filed applications as above (Ext.P5), and seeking consideration of the aforementioned applications. This Court, on 10.05.2022, issued the following order:

“When the case was taken today, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a likelihood that other unattached workers will be granted identity cards overlooking the claim of the petitioners that have been raised in this writ petition.

There will be an interim direction to the first respondent to consider the claims made by the petitioners before taking steps to issue of identity cards under Rule 26A of Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981 to any other unattached workers, if it is so proposed.”

Thus, by the aforementioned order, this Court directed the authorities to take note of the claim made by the petitioners (Ext.P5) as also their requirement for being heard before any steps are taken for issuing cards to the other workers in the area.

2. The petitioners point out that in spite of the order issued as above, they were not heard by the respondents, and therefore, the petitioners were before this Court by filing a Contempt of Court Application. When the contempt matter was taken up, it was pointed out that the application/s filed by the petitioners were already rejected. It was further pointed out that Rule 26A identity cards were issued to others by virtue of separate orders. In such circumstances, the Contempt of Court Application was closed, permitting the petitioners therein to take appropriate steps for challenging the orders issued as above.

3. Therefore, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16138 of 2023 have sought to challenge Ext.P3 order, by which the applications filed by the petitioners were rejected, as well as Ext.P8 appellate order filed against Ext.P3. The petitioners have also independently challenged the grant of Rule 26A cards to others pursuant to Ext.P5 order dated 25.04.2022, by filing W.P.(C) No.16194 of 2023 seeking to challenge the afore. The appellate order against Ext.P5 at Ext.P10 is also challenged in this writ petition.

4. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6844 of 2023 have also sought to challenge the order dated 14.02.2023, by which certain workers in the “9R Pool” in the Kozhikode District were permitted to carry out the loading/unloading activities as regards the new outlet at Mandankavu.

5. W.P.(C) No.25471 of 2023 has been instituted by loading/unloading workers in the locality of Mandankavu, who were already having the identity cards issued under Rule 26A of the Rules, seeking to challenge the grant of cards to others. It may straightway be noticed t