Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., J
CAPITAL NUTMART – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against registration rejection based on worker impact. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court mandates reconsideration of initial decision. (Para 4) |
| 3. affirmation of law concerning registration processes. (Para 5) |
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order of the Assistant Labour Officer, 2nd Circle, Thiruvananthapuram, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner’s employees for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules , 1981(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), as also Ext.P5 order of the Appellate Authority, namely, the District Labour Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, confirming Ext.P4 order.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application for registration was rejected by the original authority for two reasons. It is submitted that, according to the Registering Authority, the business of the petitioner had not commenced. It is further submitted that the other reason stated by the Registering Authority is that the grant of registration may affect the pool workers in the area. It is submitted that both these reasons cannot be sustained, as the petitioner has clearly averred in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
