Registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules requires a factual determination of whether an applicant is predominantly engaged in loading and unloading work; contradictory findings by authorities necessitate a remand for fresh adjudication in accordance with established judicial precedents.

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 learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would assert that the finding in Ext.P7 that petitioners 1 to 3 were not predominantly engaged in loading and unloading work is completely wrong and contrary to the facts.

3. The learned counsel appearing for additional R4 to R11 would contend that petitioners 1 to 3 are not entitled to registration under Rule 26A of the Rules, as they are not predominantly engaged in loading and unloading work. The third respondent Board has filed a statement before this Court supporting the stand of additional R4 to R11.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board and the learned counsel appearing for additional R4 to R11, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the second respondent. I am inclined to hold so taking into consideration the fact that the 2nd respondent had through Ext.P6 order earlier found that petitioners 1 to 3 had been engaged in loading and unloading work and had yet proceeded to reject the application for registration on the ground that an objection was raised by the Board and that the grant of registration would adversely affect the livelihood of the pool workers.

5. Going by the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad , 2022 (5) KLT 188, the reasons given by the second respondent for rejecting the application for registration may not be sustainable. However, while considering the appeal filed by the petitioners, the 1st respondent arrived at the conclusion that petitioners 1 to 3 were not predominantly engaged in loading and unloading work.

6. According to the learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 to 11, this finding of the first respondent disentitles petitioners 1 to 3 from claiming that they are entitled to the grant of registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. Since the reasons found by the original authority and the appellate authority appear to defer and since the question as to whether petitioners 1 to 3 are predominantly engaged in loading and unloading work involves the factual determination, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the 2nd respondent.

Accordingly, Exts.P6 and P7 orders will stand set aside. The applications filed by petitioners 1 to 3 for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules will stand restored to the file of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the Headload Workers Board and also to additional respondents 4 to 11. While passing such orders, the 2nd respondent shall also have due regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Nishad (Supra). The respondent shall endeavour t