The rejection of registration based on potential impact on existing workers is not valid under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981.

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order of the Assistant Labour Officer, 2^nd 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 the writ petition that the petitioner was unable to start business owing to obstruction by the pool workers in the area. It is also submitted that the other reason mentioned in Ext.P4 order of the Registering Authority cannot be sustained, as it is settled law that, while considering an application for registration under Rule 26 A of the Rules, the fact that the grant of registration may affect pool workers is not a valid ground to reject an application for registration. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority, without taking into consideration the legal aspects, mechanically confirmed Ext.P4 order.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Registering Authority.

5. In paragraph No.3 of the writ petition, it is stated as follows:

“3. The petitioner's business is a new venture at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has his own permanent headload workers for loading and unloading dry fruits and fresh fruits arriving at the shop and godown. However, when the petitioner was preparing to commence operations, certain members under the third respondent came to the godown and informed that they would not permit anyone from outside to perform loading and unloading work in the locality. Because of obstruction on the part of employees of third respondent who are members of trade union petitioner is not in apposition to commence the business even though petitioner obtained all statutory permission for the same. Consequently, seven employees of the petitioner, namely: (1) Maminul Haque, (2) Rahul Shil, (3) Jubair, (4) Shahinur Alam, (5) Mahin K.K. (6) Rahul Sheikh and (7) Sahil Mohd Rowshon Elahi submitted applications dated 20.12.2025 before the second respondent seeking headload worker identity cards. The petitioner also submitted an application dated 23.12.2025 along with the applications of the said employees requesting issuance of identity cards. A true copy of the application dated 23.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3.”

Taking into consideration the above averments in the writ petition, the stand of the Registering Authority that the petitioner has not commenced business may not be a valid ground to deny registration under Rule 26A of the Rules, if the employees of the petitioner satisfy all other conditions for the grant of registration. The fact that the grant of registration may affect pool workers will also not be a ground to refuse registration, in the light of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this C