Allowed

Abdul Nasir v. District Labour Officer

Kerala HC20 Jun 2016WP(C)/6304/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition challenging the rejection of registration for head load workers attached to a partnership firm. The court held that Rule 26A mandates registration to ensure casual employment is not resorted to, rather than to deprive pool workers. The ground of non-maintenance of registers could not be sustained for a new establishment.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P8 and P9 orders set aside; the 2nd respondent directed to grant registration within three weeks.

Abdul Nasir Vs District Labour Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6304 of 2016 (K) ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. ABDUL NASIR, AGED 40 YEARS,

¶8

S/O. ABOOBACKER, PUTHALATH HOUSE, KADAVATHOOR P.O., THALASSER, KANNUR, PIN-670676.

¶9

2. HARRIS A.

¶10

S/O. ABDULLA, RESIDING AT ATTA HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA P.O., MANANTHAVADI.

¶11

3. EBRAHIM E.C.

¶12

S/O. ABU, THERINGHOLIL HOUSE, THENDAPARAMBA, KADAVATHOOR P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670676.

¶13

4. MUHAMMED P.

¶14

S/O. ABU, THERINGHOLIL HOUSE, THENDAPARAMBA, KADAVATHOOR P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670676.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.G.S.KRISHNAN KARTHA SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN SRI.M.RETHEESHKUMAR SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.P.S.GIREESH SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER KANNUR, PIN-670002.

¶18

2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER THALASSERY II CIRCLE, KUTHUPARAMBA, PIN-670643.

¶19

ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED

¶20

ADDL.R3 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, KANNUR.

¶21

ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.03.2016 IN I.A. NO.4342/2016

¶22

R1&R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.S. AJITH PRAKASH, SC, KHWWB

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 6304 of 2016 (K)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 31-08-2015.

¶28

P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED UNDER RULE 17(4) OF KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX RULES 2005.

¶29

P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENSE ISSUED BY PERINGOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶30

P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28-12-2015 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER.

¶31

P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28-12-2015 SUBMITTED BY 3RD PETITIONER.

¶32

P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28-12-2015 SUBMITTED BY 4TH PETITIONER.

¶33

P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 655 OF 2016.

¶34

P8- A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTING ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6TH FEBRUARY 2016.

¶35

P9- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9TH FEBRUARY 2016.

¶36

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

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 6304 of 2016 (K)

¶43

Dated: 20^th June, 2016

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

The petitioners are aggrieved with Exts.P8 and P9 orders of the Registering authority and the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (for brevity 'Rules of 1981'). The 1^st petitioner who started a partnership firm, as evidenced by Ext.P1 deed, engaged in cement business, had employed three head load workers attached to his establishment, who are petitioners 2 to 4. The registration under the Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the D&O license issued by the Panchayath are produced as Exts.P2 and P3. The petitioners 2 to 4 also filed Exts.P4 to P6 applications under Rule 26A of the Rules of 1981.

¶46

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 6304/2016

¶48

-2-

¶49

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Head load Workers Welfare Board.

¶50

The 2^nd respondent, who considered the issue of registration, rejected the same by Ext.P8. The grounds for rejection were that the registration granted would result in depriving the workers in the pool of work and that the 1^st petitioner has not maintained registers of the head load workers attached to his establishment. When Rule 26A provides for registration of workers attached to an establishment, then, no ground can be taken of depriving the regular pool workers of that work. An establishment is entitled to employ workers attached to it as per the Rules and the only prescription is that there should be a registration. The mandate of registration is also to ensure that casual employment is not made, then depriving the pool members from the work in the locality.

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 6304/2016

¶52

-3-

¶53

The further ground that registers are not maintained, cannot be sustained on facts since the petitioner commenced his business only on 01.01.2016. As to new establishments, there is no requirement for maintaining such registers as has been laid down in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer - 2010 (4) KLT 783 .

¶54

In such circumstance, the writ petition is allowed setting aside Exts.P8 and P9. The 2^nd respondent is directed to grant the registration within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. No Costs.

¶55

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶56

jjj 20/6/16

Abdul Nasir v. District Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Nasir v. 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

All Kerala Bus Operators Forum Vs V.A. Krishnadas

Sri.R.Nagarajan Vs Sri.P.Karthikeyan Nair

Gospel for Asia Vs State of Kerala

Udayan Vs Punalur Municipality

Reliance Security Agency Vs Gopalankutty Kurupu

G. Sakunthala Vs State of Kerala