Allowed

Nishad M.B v. the District Labour Officer

Kerala HC6 Oct 2021WP(C)/11601/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside rejection orders issued by labour authorities denying registration to the petitioner's permanent workers. Holding that willingness to engage is sufficient for registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act without prior experience, the Court directed registration and issuance of identity cards within one month.

What did the court decide?

Set aside orders Ext.P12 and Ext.P15 and directed the second respondent to grant registration to applicants Ext.P1 to Ext.P9 and issue identity cards under Rule 26A within one month.

Nishad M.B Vs the District Labour Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11601 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NISHAD M.B

¶8

AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. M.A. BASHIR, MAB VEGETABLES, ONION AND POTATO MERCHANTS, MARKET P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA NOW RESIDING AT MALIYEKKAL THAZHATH HOUSE, PUTHUPADI P.O. PERUMATTOM, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 673.

¶9

BY ADV BIJU ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, 682 030.

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, MUDAVOOR P.O. 686 669.

¶13

**3 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD SUB OFFICE, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA 686673 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.06.2021 IN I.A. NO.1/2020 IN W.P.(C)

-:2:-

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

NO.11601/2021)

BY ADVS.

SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB

¶19

SMT.SABEENA.P.ISMAIL ,GOVT. PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON 06.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

-:3:-

¶22

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

¶23

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶24

-----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.11601 of 2021

¶25

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2021

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Petitioner is challenging the rejection of Ext.P1 to Ext.P9 applications submitted by his permanent employees for registration as headload workers in the establishment of the petitioner. By Ext.P12, the second respondent rejected the applications while by Ext.P15, the first respondent, as the appellate authority, rejected the appeal and hence this writ petition is preferred.

¶28

Petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment that deals with the wholesale marketing of vegetables. Petitioner is having nine permanent workers attached to the establishment and loading and unloading works were being carried out in his establishment with his own permanent workmen along with the union workers as and when the situation warranted such employment. According to the petitioner, from November, 2020 onwards, the headload workers registered with

¶29

the third respondent started demanding exorbitant amounts and even delayed the unloading of goods, thereby causing damage to the

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

¶32

vegetables that were brought to the petitioner’s establishment. Though several complaints were filed before the third respondent, the registered headload workers of the unions continued to indulge in activities that were prejudicial to the petitioner, causing immense loss. Faced with such adverse conditions, petitioner sought registration of his permanent workers, who were doing loading and unloading activities earlier, as permanent headload workers.

¶33

Initially, applications were filed by four persons on 23-11-2020 and thereafter applications were submitted by the remaining five permanent workers on 02-12-2020 before the second respondent. According to the petitioner, even though all the workers are willing to do the work of loading and unloading and the petitioner is ready and willing to engage those workers as headload workers, the second respondent rejected the applications filed by petitioner’s workers as per Ext.P12 order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P15. In view of the aforesaid adverse orders, petitioner challenges those orders and has also sought for a direction to grant registration to the workers of the petitioner, who had applied as per Ext.P1 to Ext.P9 for registration as headload workers.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

¶35

-:5:-

¶36

Adv. Biju Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the orders rejecting the application submitted by petitioner’s workers for registration as headload workers are patently absurd and contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by this Court in the decisions in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer (2010 (4) KLT 783) as well as the recent decision in Manzoor v. District Labour Officer (2021 (5) KLT 554). It was contended that the applicants were doing loading and unloading work in the petitioner’s establishment, especially when the registered headload workers were not attending to the work, even after requests. They also expressed their willingness to work as headload workers and thus the application for registration ought to have been allowed. Referring to the findings of the second respondent in Ext.P12, the learned counsel contended that, it is evident from the order itself that the applicants had been doing loading and unloading work in petitioner’s establishment and that the order rejecting the applications was based upon reasons which were unsustainable under law.

¶37

On the other hand, Smt. Sabeena P. Ismail, the learned

¶38

Government Pleader as well as Adv.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned

¶39

-:6:-

¶40

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

¶41

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contentions of the writ petitioner and stated that the registration of petitioner’s permanent employees as headload workers will affect the existing workers. Relying upon the findings in Ext.P12, it was contended that even if it is assumed that the workers of the petitioner have done loading and unloading work only occasionally and the same was not their predominant work in the said establishment and hence they cannot be granted registration as headload workers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act').

¶42

This Court had recently held in Manzoor v. District Labour

¶43

Officer (supra) that registration of a headload worker to the establishment does not depend upon prior work as a headload worker. The only requirement contemplated under the Act and as laid down by this Court in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer (2010 (4) KLT 783) is that the applicant must have the necessary physique to do loading and unloading work. Physique to do loading and unloading work has to be appreciated objectively. When a worker expresses his willingness to work as a headload worker and the owner of an establishment agrees to engage him as a headload worker, the same is sufficient to treat him as a headload worker.

¶44

-:7:-

¶45

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

¶46

In the decision in Gangadharan v. Abdul Nasir (2016 (4) KLT 592), it was held that the existing registered unattached workers had no right to prevent the registration of other workers as headload workers attached to an establishment. Viewed in the above principles of law, it is evident that the reasons given in Ext.P12 and Ext.P15 to reject the application of petitioner's workers for registration as headload workers are perverse and have no legal basis.

¶47

In this context it may be worthwhile to remember that every person has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on any occupation and the same can be subjected only to reasonable restrictions as provided for under Article 19(6). The work of loading and unloading is not a work that requires any specialised experience or technical or educational qualifications. Any person who is willing to do loading and unloading must have the freedom to do the said work unless it is curtailed by a reasonable restriction. The restriction that is introduced through the Act, in a scheme covered area, for doing headload work, is the requirement of registration as a headload worker. If the restriction of registration curtails the fundamental right of every individual to do headload work and the said restriction has to

¶48

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

¶49

-:8:-

¶50

be constitutionally valid, without falling foul of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14, then that restriction must be reasonable. Otherwise, it will create an unreasonable classification resulting in discrimination between those left out of the group and those included in the group of headload workers.

¶51

In Ext.P12, the second respondent had entered into a factual finding that the applicants have carried out loading and unloading occasionally. It must be remembered that in an area which is covered under the scheme, only persons who were registered under the Act as a headload worker can be permitted to do loading and unloading work. It would be impossible for any worker attached to an establishment to do loading and unloading work without infringing the law and unless he is registered under the Act. It is in such circumstances that this Court had in the decision in Manzoor v. District Labour Officer (2021 (5) KLT 554) and in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer (2010 (4) KLT 783) held that, registration of a headload worker to the establishment does not depend upon prior work as a headload worker, but is based upon willingness to do headload work and willingness to employ those workers by the establishment. A perusal of Ext.P12 and Ext.P15 reveals that the

¶52

-:9:-

¶53

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

¶54

petitioner had engaged the applicants as permanent workers and they have even done headload work in his establishment. It is evident that the permanent workers of the petitioner, who had filed Ext.P1 to Ext.P9, are entitled to be registered as headload workers attached to the establishment of the third respondent.

¶55

Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P12 and Ext.P15 and direct the second respondent to grant registration to those applicants in Ext.P1 to Ext.P9 as headload workers and issue the necessary identity cards as contemplated under Rule 26A(3) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, in a time-bound manner, at any rate, within a

¶56

period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶57

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

vps

-:10:-

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11601/2021

¶64

PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS

¶65

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ASARAF C.M. DATED 23.11.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ATTACHED CATEGORY FOR THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTTED BY NISSAR M.B. DATED 23.11.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ATTACHED CATEGORY FOR THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ANAS DATED 23.11.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ATTACHED CATEGORY FOR THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY BASHEER DATED 23.11.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ATTACHED CATEGORY FOR THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MUHAMMED MANAF DATED 2.12.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ATTACHED CATEGORY FOR THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SULFIKAR U.B. DATED 2.12.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ATTACHED CATEGORY FOR THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MYTHEEN V.K., DATED 2.12.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ATTACHED CATEGORY FOR THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DINU MANDAL DATED 2.12.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ATTACHED CATEGORY FOR THE PETITIONER.

¶66

-:11:-

¶67

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

¶68

EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
	BY SANIL M.S. DATED 2.12.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ATTACHED CATEGORY FOR THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO. 27665/2020 DATED 11.12.2020 OF THIS HONBLE CORUT.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.01.2021 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. HLW/326/2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P12(a)	THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P12
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFRROE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DAED 03.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENNT ON 31.03.2021 IN APPEAL NO. H-1059 OF 2021.
EXHIBIT P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2021.
EXHIBIT P15(a)	THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P15
EXHIBIT P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS.
EXHIBIT P16(a)	THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P16
EXHIBIT P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.2.2021 SUBMITTTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS.
EXHIBIT P17(a)	THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P17
EXHIBIT P18	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.03.2201 UBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶69

-:12:-

¶70

W.P.(C) No.11601/21

¶71

BEFORE THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER . EXHIBIT P18(a) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P18 EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE RRECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFICER OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 25.03.2021.

¶72

EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENNT DATED 25.03.2021. EXHIBIT P20(a) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P20

¶73

RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS

¶74

ANNEXURE R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER KERALA SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT TO NISHAD M.B. M.A.B. VEGETABLES, MUVATTUPUZHA (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)

¶75

ANNEXURE R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTER BEING MAINTAINED BY THE BOARD IN RESPECT OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO SRI.M.A.BASHEER WHO WAS THE EMPLOYER IN 2014

Nishad M.B v. the District Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishad M.B 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

Zubair v Vs State of Kerala

Aswin Associates Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Cochin Refineries Employees Association Vs Union of India

Prasanna Kumar R Vs the District Labour Officer

Asianet Digital Network Private Limited Vs Union of India

Manikantan Nair B., Vs the Chief Manager