Allowed

Bijoy P.Joseph v. the District Labour Officer

Kerala HC4 Jan 2022WP(C)/25429/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for registration as head load workers by permanent employees of the petitioner. Relying on precedents, the Court held that existing pool workers cannot be a bar to registration if permanent employees are willing to do the work.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's support workers to be registered as head load workers under Rule 26A within 30 days and necessary cards to be issued.

Bijoy P.Joseph Vs the District Labour Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 14TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 25429 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BIJOY P.JOSEPH AGED 46 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, PULICKAMPURATH HARDWARES, EDOOR ROAD, MADATHIL, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670703, RESIDING AT PULICKAMPURATH HOUSE, PAYAM P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670704. BY ADV R.RAMADAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670002.

¶10

2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, IRITTY, NEAR FIRE STATION, KANNUR – 670703.

¶11

3 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY / EXECUTIVE OFFICER, IRITTY SUB OFFICE, SHRUTHI COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, IRITTY, KANNUR - 670703.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT. SABEENA P.ISMAIL-GP R3 BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 25429 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶17

................................................

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.25429 OF 2021

¶19

…........................................ Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner is the proprietor of a business

¶22

establishment by name Pulickampurath Hardwares. The said establishment is situated in an area covered by the scheme, notified under the Headload Workers Act 1978 and its Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that when six permanent employees of the petitioner who were carrying on the loading and unloading work in the godown of the petitioner’s establishment applied for registration as head load workers under the Headload Workers Act, 1978 (for short the Act) and the Headload Workers Rules 1981, (for short the Rules) by Ext.P2 order dated 28/7/2021, the 2^nd respondent rejected the same without any basis and contrary to law.

¶23

WP(C) NO. 25429 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

Challenging the order of the 2^nd respondent, an appeal was preferred before the 1^st respondent, who, after hearing the employees of the petitioner, issued Ext.P3 order rejecting the appeal by merely reiterating the reasoning stated by the 2^nd respondent. Petitioner contends that, in view of the law laid down by this Court in numerous decisions, the applications filed by the petitioner’s employees were liable to be allowed and they are entitled to be granted registration as headload workers attached to the establishment of the petitioner under Rule 26A of the Rules.

¶26

A statement has been filed by the 3^rd respondent, stating that the establishment of the petitioner is situated in an area called Madathil town and the scheme has been implemented under the Rules, coming under Irrity subcommittee office of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board . It was further pointed out that there are already 10 registered pool workers under the 3^rd respondent relating to the said area and that the said

¶27

WP(C) NO. 25429 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

number of workers are more than sufficient to satisfy the needs of the petitioner as well as other establishments in the area. 3^rd respondent further pleaded that, if registration is granted to the employees of the petitioner, the same would affect the livelihood of the registered pool workers and would destabilize the system envisaged in the statutory scheme.

¶30

I have heard Sri.R.Ramdas, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.Sabeena P.Ismail, the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶31

This Court has already held in several decisions including ( Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police 1998 (2) KLT 732 (F.B.], that even in scheme covered areas, the employees of the establishment are entitled to get registration under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. Similarly it has also been held in the decisions in ( Manzoor v. v.District Labour Officer 2021 (5) KLT

¶32

WP(C) NO. 25429 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

554 and Rajeeve v. District Labour Officer 2010 (4) KLT 783) that the registration of headload workers does not depend upon his prior work as a headload worker and that, if the permanent workers of an establishment are willing to do the work of loading and unloading and the employer is willing to accept such workers as headload workers, the same is sufficient. It has also been held that the reduction of employment opportunities for existing registered pool workers is not a ground to reject registration of the headload workers attached to an establishment.

¶35

On a perusal of Ext.P2 in the present case reveals that the only reason stated by the 2^nd respondent is that if registration is granted to petitioner’s employees, that will prejudicially affect the employment opportunities of existing registered pool workers. In appeal also the Appellate Authority reiterated the aforesaid reasoning and also stated that the chairman of the 3^rd respondent had objected to the grant of registration. According to

¶36

WP(C) NO. 25429 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

me, the aforesaid reasoning is not justified in law in view of the decisions referred to earlier. The employees of the petitioner are therefore entitled to be registered as headload workers attached to the petitioner’s establishment, since there was no dispute that they are the permanent employees of the petitioner.

¶39

In view of the above, I set aside Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 and direct the 2^nd respondent to grant registration to the employees of the petitioners as applied, and whose names are referred to in Ext.P3 and grant them the necessary cards under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

This writ petition is allowed with the above

¶41

observations.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶44

AJM

¶45

WP(C) NO. 25429 OF 2021

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25429/2021

¶48

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2021 IN W.P(C) NO. 9545/2021. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.02/2020(5) DATED 28.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G(3) 3485/2021 DATED 16.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶50

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

PA TO JUDGE

Bijoy P.Joseph v. the District Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy P.Joseph 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunny Varghese Vs Assistant Labour Officer

P.V Antony Vs District Labour Officer

Eisa Nooh Zetnan Zetan Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (R&I)

National Radio Electronics Corporation Vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence)

Shylesh K. Vs the Authorized Officer, Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Jose M Panikkulam Vs Irinjalakkuda Town Co-Operative Bank