Existing registered Headload workers filed a writ petition challenging the potential registration of fresh applicants, claiming surplusage and seeking an opportunity to be heard. The court dismissed the petition, following a prior decision that existing workers have no right to be heard during registration proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012/10TH SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 18101 of 2012 (K)
PETITIONERS:
BY ADVS.SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR
SRI.K.A.ANI JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXT.P2: -DO- 2ND PETITIONER
EXT.P3: -DO- REPRESENTATION DT. NIL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
JJ /TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
W.P(C) NO: 18101 OF 2012
Dated this the 1st August, 2012.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are registered Headload Workers of the
Brahmapuram area. According to them, the existing Headload workers are more than sufficient for discharging the work available in the area. In the above circumstances, the third respondent and some others have submitted applications before the first respondent seeking registration as Headload workers. The petitioners allege that the first respondent is likely to grant registration to the fresh applicants without considering the fact that the existing workers are surplus and that there are no fresh job opportunities available. Therefore, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P3 objections. They seek the issue of a direction to the first respondent to afford them an opportunity of being heard, in the matter of granting registration to the third respondent and other applicants.
in an area have a right to be heard in the matter of grant of registration to fresh Headload workers has been considered by me
WPC 18101/2012 2
in the judgment dated 24th July, 2012 in WP(C) 16349/2012. It has been held by me on a consideration of the provisions of the Headload Workers Act, 1978 that the existing Headload Workers have no right to be heard in the matter. The only right available to them is to challenge the order granting registration, if they are aggrieved.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
jj /True copy/
P.S.to Judge
WPC 18101/2012 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether existing Headload workers have a right to be heard before the authority grants registration to fresh applicants.
Whether the writ petition for direction to afford an opportunity of hearing should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
WP(C) 16349/2012Followed¶43
SUPRAN C.T. AND ORS.
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD
ASHOKAN P.R.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
