The rejection of registration applications cannot rely solely on potential impacts on existing workers.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners claim to be permanent workers of the

4^th respondent. They are aggrieved by the fact that their application for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially the Original Authority passed Exhibit P6 order, which was set aside by the Appellate Authority by Exhibit P8 order. It is submitted that, after remand, the Original Authority has again passed the very same order rejecting the application for registration on the ground that the grant of registration might affect the pool workers in the area.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent Board submits that the order of the Original Authority, which is presently impugned in the writ petition (namely Exhibit P10) would indicate that while one of the reasons stated is that the grant of registration would affect the pool workers in the area, there are other reasons also, for which the application for registration has been rejected. It is submitted that, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy against Exhibit P10 and no ground is made out for interference with Exhibit P10 in exercise of the writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy.

4. 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 Board, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of without notice to the 4^th respondent as no orders to the prejudice of the 4^th respondent is being issued by this Court.

5. It is clear from the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board V. Nishad ; 2022 (5) KLT 188 that the possibility of the work being done by the pool workers in a particular area being affected is not a ground to reject an application for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. Since it is not disputed before me that at least one of the reasons stated in Exhibit P10 is that the grant of registration might affect the headload workers in the area, I am inclined to set aside Exhibit P10 order notwithstanding the availability of any alternative remedy Accordingly, Exhibit P10 order is quashed. The Original Authority (namely the 1^st respondent) is directed to reconsider the applications filed by the petitioners, also keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in Nishad (supra), as expeditiously as possible. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it will be open to the 1^st respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to all affected parties.

Sd/-