Allowed

T.K.Mohammed Basheer v. the District Labour Officer

Kerala HC2 Mar 2016WP(C)/36272/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five headload workers challenged rejection of their registration applications under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, arguing their employer would soon employ them permanently. The Court relied on prior precedent that registration does not require prior employment.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P12 and Exhibits P8 to P11 set aside; first respondent directed to grant registration to petitioners 2 to 5 if applications are otherwise in order; fresh orders to be issued within one month.

T.K.Mohammed Basheer Vs the District Labour Officer — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/12TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶4

WP(C).No. 36272 of 2015 (H)

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶6

1. T.K.MOHAMMED BASHEER,

¶7

S/O.T.K.MOHAMMEDKUTTY,THAYYIL KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, KANMANAM.P.O,MALAPPURAM,(MANAGING PARTNER,

¶8

T.K.TRADING COMPANY,

¶9

DOOR NO.III/651,VANIYAMKULAM,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT).

¶10

2. T.SREENIVASAN,

¶11

S/O.KUMARAN,THATTANPAKKIL HOUSE,EDAKODE,PANAYOOR, VANIYAMKULAM,OTTAPPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

3. P.P.SURESH KUMAR,

¶13

S/O.KORAN,POTHAYATH

¶14

MANAPPADY,MANANNUR.P.O,VANIYAMKULAM,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

4. C.SHAJI,

¶16

S/O.BASHEER,CHOLAKKIL HOUSE,VANIYAMKULAM.P.O, OTTAPPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

5. K.SANTHOSH,

¶18

AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KUNNAMKORATH HOUSE, VANIYAMKULAM P.O.,

¶19

OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)

¶21

SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶23

1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, (THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA HEAD

¶24

LOAD WORKERS ACT & RULES),CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD-678001.

¶25

2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, (REGISTERING AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA

¶26

HEAD LOAD WORKERS ACT & RULES),OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKAD-679101.

¶27

-2-

¶28

WP(C).No. 36272 of 2015

¶29

3. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶30

4. THE CHAIRPERSON, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,

¶31

OTTAPPALAM SUB COMMITTE,OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKAD-679101.

¶32

R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.S. AJITH PRAKASH, SC, KHWWB R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

WP(C).No. 36272 of 2015 (H)

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶37

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 14-10-2015

¶38

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20-05-2015

¶39

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 27-05-2015

¶40

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER DATED 27-05-2015

¶41

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH PETITIONER DATED 27-05-2015

¶42

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATI0N SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH PETITIONER DATED 27-05-2015

¶43

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-07-2015 IN WP(C) 21416/2015

¶44

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HL 81(1)/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1-8-2015 IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND PETITIONER

¶45

P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HL 81(2)/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1-8-2015 IN RESPECT OF THE THIRD PETITIONER

¶46

P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HL 81(3)/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1-8-2015 IN RESPECT OF THE FOURTH PETITIONER

¶47

P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HL 81(4)/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1-8-2015 IN RESPECT OF THE FIFTH PETITIONER

¶48

P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HLA 9/15(C-5954/2015) DATED 26-09-2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶49

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶54

----------------------------------------------WP(C).No. 36272 of 2015

¶55

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd March, 2016

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

The first petitioner is the employer and petitioners 2 to 5 are headload workers sought to be employed by him who sought registration under Rule 26(A) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. The first petitioner is a super stockist as well as clearing and forwarding agent of cement. He had obtained licence from the Grama Panchayat as well as registration under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. Petitioners 2 to 5 had applied for permanent registration as employees of the first petitioner. When no action was taken on their applications, the first petitioner had approached this Court and by Exhibit P7 judgment the respondents were directed to consider the applications. Thereafter, Exhibits P8 to P11 orders were issued rejecting the application on the ground that the applicants are not persons who are employed for loading and unloading work in the establishment. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the first respondent stating that the establishment had not become functional when the applications were made and that petitioners 2 to 5 are proposed to be employed as

¶58

WP(C).36272/15 2

¶59

permanent employees by the first petitioner. However, the appeal was also rejected by Exhibit P12 order. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.

¶60

Heard Dr.K.P.Satheesan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, learned standing counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶61

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relies on a judgment of this Court in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer [2010(4) KLT 783] to contend that persons seeking registration as headload workers in a newly started establishment or proposed establishments need not be headload workers already working under the employer. It is contended that the employer's seek to employ petitioners 2 to 5 as his permanent employees and production evidence that they are already in service would thus be an impossibility.

¶62

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent contending that there is no irregularity on the part of the second respondent in denying registration. It is contended that the Assistant Labour Officer, Ottappalam conducted enquiry in the premises of the establishment and he did not see any worker

¶63

¶64

WP(C).36272/15

¶65

doing headload work or any register on record. Moreover, during the hearing of the appeal also, no documents were produced. Hence, the appeal was rejected.

¶66

5. Petitioners 2 to 5 had preferred applications for registration as head load workers. Their specific case was that the first petitioner proposed to engage them in his establishment which had just been issued with necessary licenses. Since the establishment was to be a stockist for cement, it is not in dispute that the services of head load workers would be required by the first petitioner. It is in those circumstances that the first petitioner had sought to employ petitioners 2 to 5 as his permanent workers and they had sought registration. This Court in Rajeev's case (supra) considered the provisions of the Kerala Head load Workers Act, Rules and the Scheme framed thereunder and held as follows:

¶67

“....I f without registration nobody can work as a headload worker, I fail to understand how a person who wants to start work as a head load worker for the first time can be insisted on to prove that he was already working under the employer as a condition for entertaining an application for registration. Therefore I am of opinion that R.26A and the Form IX should be so construed and read down that for getting registration, what is required is a

¶68

¶69

WP(C).36272/15

¶70

good physique and, an employer who is prepared to engage the applicant as a headload worker and it is not necessary that he should have already been working under the employer under whom he seeks registration as headload worker for becoming eligible for such registration.”

¶71

The facts raised in this case are identical in nature. The ratio of the decision in Rajeev's case (supra) applies on all fours to the facts of the instant case as well.

¶72

In the above circumstances, Exhibit P12 appellate order and Exhibits P8 to P11 orders of rejection of registration are set aside. The first respondent is directed to take up the applications preferred by petitioners 2 to 5 and grant registration to petitioners 2 to 5, if those applications are otherwise in order. It is made clear that the applications shall not be rejected for the reason that petitioners 2 to 5 are not working as headload workers. Orders on the applications for registration shall be issued afresh within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶73

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶74

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶75

vgs

T.K.Mohammed Basheer v. the District Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Mohammed Basheer v. the District Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priya R. Vs Dr.K.Mohammed Basheer

C Rajan Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Sinha

Annamkutty George Vs v.R.Raju, Secretary

Noushad V.P. Vs State of Kerala

M.Ziyad Vs Indian Oil Corporation

A.M.Gopalan Vs K.P.Sivadasan