Sudheesh B. vs District Labour Officer - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34798

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34798

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., J
Sudheesh B. – Appellant
Versus
District Labour Officer – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.Ranju Mohan, M.Santhi, Pyarin B. Kuruvithadam, Theertha Nair A.P.
For the Respondents: Thomas Abraham, Philip T.Varghese, Thomas T.Varghese, Achu Subha Abraham, V.T.Litha, K.R.Monisha, Nitya R., Jijo Paul, Anjali Sunil, Jincy C.J.

Table of Content
1. factual dispute regarding the primary engagement of workers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. requirement for consistent administrative findings on factual eligibility for registration. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Petitioners 1 to 3 are employees of the 4th petitioner. According to the petitioners, they were so employed in connection with the loading and unloading work of the 4th petitioner’s establishment. By Ext.P6 order, the application filed by petitioners 1 to 3 for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) was rejected. The rejection was on the ground that the Headload Workers Board had objected to the grant of registration and that the issuance of such registration would adversely affect the livelihood of the pool workers. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. However, by Ext.P7 order, the 1st respondent rejected the appeal, holding that petitioners 1 to 3 were not predominantly engaged in loading and unloading work.

2. The learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document