Disposed

Sanal Kumar, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2024WP(C)/11756/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A headload worker holding a Rule 26A card was denied 6A registration by the District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board on grounds of no pool vacancy and irregular card issuance. The court set aside the rejection order and permitted fresh application at pool replenishment.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 set aside; liberty granted to apply for 6A registration when pool strength is replenished.

Sanal Kumar, Vs the State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 11756 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SANAL KUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, ERATHUMADAVILAKOM, VETTAMANGALAM, RUSSELPURAM.P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695501

¶7

BY ADVS. K.B.PRADEEP HARISANKAR R JEEVAN KRISHNAKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS' REGISTERING AUTHORITY & ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121

¶11

3 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695036

¶12

4 DISTRICT COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KOUSTHUBHAM COMPLEX, TC 43(C)/1189 ,CHALAI P. O., CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036

¶13

W.P.(C) No.11756/2023

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

*5 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD, DISTRICT COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KOUSTHUBHAM COMPLEX, TC 43(C)/1189, CHALAI P.O., CHENTHITTA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695036 ADDL.6 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JILLA HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION(CITU), RUSSELPURAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR R.AKHILESH, RESIDING AT RODARIKATHU VEEDU, RUSSELPURAM P O, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501

¶16

*ADDL.7 HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC), RUSSELPURAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR P.ASOKAN, RESIDING AT ASOKAVILASOM, RUSSELPURAM P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501 [ADDL.R6 & R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30/06/2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN WP(C) 11756/2023]

¶17

BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN ASWIN.P.JOHN MABLE C KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No.11756/2023

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 17^th day of Jul y, 2024

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 decision of the 4^th respondent-District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board.

¶24

The petitioner holds a Rule 26A Card issued under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The petitioner applied for getting 6A registration under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983. The petitioner's application stands rejected as per Ext.P5 proceedings of the Board.

¶25

In Ext.P5 proceedings, the Board has observed that the pool was constituted on 01.09.2021 at Russelpuram by including 32 Headload workers, who were then doing work. The petitioner has obtained Rule 26A Card subsequently by obtaining a judgment from the Kerala

¶26

W.P.(C) No.11756/2023

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

High Court, misleading the Court. The Board further observed that Rule 26 A Card is issued to the petitioner without ascertaining the opinion or without holding consultation with the Headload Workers' Welfare Board. In Ext.P5, it is further stated that there is no vacancy in Russelpuram pool at present in order to grant 6A Registration. On these premises, the Board has rejected the petitioner's application. The Board has also decided to take step for cancellation of Rule 26 A Card issued to the petitioner.

¶29

The counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P5 is highly illegal and arbitrary. The action of the 4^th respondent in recommending cancellation of Rule 26 A Card issued to the petitioner is illegal and malafide. Since the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 Card by virtue of Ext.P1 judgment, he is entitled to get registration under Paragraph 6A(1) of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme. The purported reason to deny registration is that there are no

¶30

W.P.(C) No.11756/2023

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

job opportunity for Headload workers in Russelpuram pool. The said reason advanced, is politically motivated. It is intended to limit the Headload workers work opportunities to 32 workers now working. It is a negation of right of the petitioner.

¶33

Standing Counsel entered and resisted the writ petition on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. On behalf of respondents 4 and 5, the Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.25983 of 2019 without making Board a party and had obtained judgment from this Court, based on which Rule 26 A card was issued to the petitioner. As per Rule 26 A(2), the Registering Authority has to issue a notice to the Chairman of the Local Committee of the area concerned. This was not done. Therefore, even the grant of Rule 26 A card to the petitioner is bad in law.

¶34

The District Committee of the Board on the basis of the advice given by the Balaramapuram Sub-committee in its meeting held on 11.03.2022, decided to reject the

¶35

W.P.(C) No.11756/2023

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

application for registration of the petitioner under the Scheme, for the reason that the Rule 26A registration was obtained by the petitioner without holding consultation with the Board as stipulated in Rule 26 A(2).

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 4 and 5.

¶39

Ext.P5 is the order impugned in this writ petition. Ext.P5 makes the following statements.

¶40

i) The District Committee has concluded that the petitioner has obtained 26 A Card misleading the High Court.

¶41

ii) The Card has been issued without holding consultation with the Board.

¶42

iii) There are no vacancies in the pool as of now in

¶43

order to issue 6A registration.

¶44

iv) The District Board has decided to request the

¶45

State Board to take legal steps to cancel 26 A Card

¶46

W.P.(C) No.11756/2023

¶47

: 7 :

¶48

issued to the petitioner.

¶49

I find that the petitioner has obtained 26 A card from the competent licencing authority namely, the Assistant Labour Officer.

¶50

If the District Committee of the Board or for that

¶51

matter any other person is aggrieved by the grant of Rule 26 A card to the petitioner, they have to file statutory appeal before the competent Appellate Authority as provided by the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the Rules made thereunder. As long as the Rule 26 A Cards are not cancelled as per the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, the District Board cannot deny Paragraph 6A(1) registration to the petitioner.

¶52

The observation relating to the non consultation with the Board before issuing Rule 26 A card to the petitioner is also unsustainable for the reason that such observation cannot invalidate the Rule 26 A Card issued to the petitioner, as long as the registration is not cancelled as contemplated by law. In the circumstances, Ext.P5 is set

¶53

W.P.(C) No.11756/2023

¶54

: 8 :

¶55

aside as the afore findings are against law.

¶56

However, the fact remains that the petitioner has

¶57

not been issued with registration under Paragraph 6A due to a further reason that there is no vacancy in the pool as of now. After obtaining Rule 26 A card, if the petitioner wants registration in a Scheme implemented area/Rule, then the petitioner has to resort to Paragraph 6A(1) of the Scheme. The applications for registration under the Scheme can be considered only when the Board decides to replenish the strength of pool workers, which would ordinarily be after a notification. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner has to make application when the pool strength is replenished as per Rules.

¶58

The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application for 6A registration, at the time of replenishment of pool.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

W.P.(C) No.11756/2023

¶64

: 9 :

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11756/2023

¶66

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶67

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.25983 OF 2019 DATED 17-12-2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDE NO. 29/2022 DATED 01/02/2022, ISSUING AN IDENTITY CARD UNDER RULE 26A OF THE RULE TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED UNDER RULE 26A OF THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' RULES, DATED 01-02- 2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED NIL, FOR REGISTRATION UNDER PARAGRAPH NO. 6A (1) OF THE SCHEME Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 1103- 2022 Exhibit P6 THE REPLY DATED 17-01-2023 TO THE PETITIONER'S QUERY UNDER RTI ACT.

Sanal Kumar, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanal Kumar, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anish Jain Vs Babu Abdul Khadeer Mohamad

P.K.Ramachandran, Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii & Recovery Officer

Chithralekha Vs the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Shafeerali Ki Vs Kerala Bank(Kerala State Co-Operative Bank)

Mohammed Hidayathulla P T Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep Represented by Its a Dministrator

D. Mohanan Vs Union of India