The definition of 'establishment' in relation to loading/unloading under the Kerala Headload Workers Act is upheld, affirming the necessity for worker registration.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the proprietor of a concern known as Cresent Hardware & Steels. According to the petitioner he is engaged in the sale of electrical equipments, sanitary wares, plumbing materials, paint, varnishes and other construction materials and has several showrooms across the State of Kerala. The petitioner states that he has started a new showroom at Kaniyambetta in Wayanad District after obtaining necessary licences and permissions. The petitioner is before this Court with a grievance that respondents 5 to 8, claiming to be headload workers at Kaniyambetta have threatened to obstruct the business of the petitioner unless they are engaged for all loading and unloading work. According to the petitioner, the establishment of the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'establishment' under Section 2 (j) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Act). It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner is not of a predominant nature and therefore, the establishment of the petitioner does not fall within the definition of ‘establishment’ under (j) of the 1978 Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that out of abundant caution, five workers of the petitioner engaged for loading and unloading work filed an application for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Rules), on 02.12.2025 and those applications have also not been considered by the registering authority namely, the 3^rd respondent.

2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the additional

9^th respondent namely, the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 vehemently oppose the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is their submission that the very nature of the business of the petitioner involves regular loading and unloading. It is submitted that since the area in question is a scheme covered area and in the absence of permanent workers of the petitioner holding registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules, the pool workers are entitled to be engaged for loading and unloading work.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the additional

9^th respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the establishment of the petitioner does not fall within the definition of ‘establishment’ under Section 2 (j) of the 1978 Act cannot be accepted. (j) of the 1978 Act and the Schedule referred to therein read as follows:-

“2(j) “establishment” means an establishment specified in the Schedule and includes the precincts thereof;”

The Schedule [See Section 2 (j)]

“1. Iron and Steel markets or shops.

2. Cloth and cotton markets or shops.

3. Grocery markets or shops.

4. Railway yards and goods sheds.

5. Establishments employing workers for loading or unloading of goods and other operations incidental and connected thereto. 6. Vegetable markets (including onions and potatoes markets).

7. Establishments employing workers for loading, unloading and carrying of foodgrains and such other work incidental and connected thereto.

8. Bus stands, Boat jetties, landing places of country crafts.

9. Forest supply and sale coupes, timber and firewood depots.

10. Quarries

11.Markets (including fish and meat markets) and factories employing workers, which are not covered by any other entries in this Schedule.

12. Rubber, Tea, Coffee, or Cardamom Plantations where work