Employer sought registration of its head load worker under Rule 26A; rejection on ground that the area was scheme covered was set aside following Gangadharan C.P., with direction to reconsider and grant registration.
Exts.P5 and P8 set aside; second respondent directed to reconsider Ext.P1 application and grant registration under Rule 26A.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 861 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
1 CITY TARPAULINS, 9/236 MLA ROAD, CHANDIROOR, AROOR - 688 537, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ZIA UL HAQ, AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF P.I MAMUKOYA, AMINALAYAM, SAFA NAGAR, WEST KALLAI, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.
2 SINESH FRANCIS AGED 31 YEARS SON OF FRANCIS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, VILAKANNUR, NADUVIL P.O, THALIPPARAMBU, KANNUR - 670 582.
BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.K.V.GEORGE SRI.P.S.GIREESH SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
RESPONDENT/S:
W.P. (C) No.861 of 2018
2
SRI. BIMAL. K. NATH, SR. G. P.,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P. (C) No.861 of 2018
3
EASWARAN S. , J.
W.P. (C) No.861 of 2018
Dated this the 1st day of April 2024
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner is the partnership firm, in which, the 2nd petitioner is the Head Load Worker. The 1st petitioner applied for registration of the 2nd petitioner under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981 (for short, 'the Rules') as per Ext.P3. By Ext.P5 order, the 2nd respondent rejected the said application, and,
being aggrieved by that, an appeal was preferred before the 1st respondent. A copy of the same is produced as Ext.P6. By Ext.P8 order, the appeal was rejected on the ground that the area where the establishment is situated is a scheme covered area and the 1st petitioner is thus not entitled to have the 2nd petitioner registered under Rule 26A of the Rules.
appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Bimal K Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri. Koshy George, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
W.P. (C) No.861 of 2018
4
contended that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in Gangadharan C.P. And Another v. Abdul Nasir and Others [2016 (5) KHC 238] wherein, it was held that an employer seeking to register his own worker is entitled to have the same registered in terms of Rule 26A of the Rules. It was further held that if any unattached workers are there in the area, they are liable to be treated as aggrieved persons in so far as their right to likelihood to the requisite extent has been adversely affected because of the said order and thus they can prefer appeal before the appropriate authority under the Rules.
In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the writ petition. Resultantly, Exts.P5 and P8 orders are set aside. There
W.P. (C) No.861 of 2018
5
will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P1 application for registration and grant registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. It is made clear that if any person is aggrieved by the registration so granted, he will be at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
Sd/- EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
W.P. (C) No.861 of 2018
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 861/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY O | F COM | PLAINT DATED 6.6.2017 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SUBMITTED BY INSPECTOR OF |
1ST POLICE, |
PETITIONER TO SUB AROOR. |
|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COP |
Y | OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
| NO.296/P1/17/ | F2 DAT | ED 6.6.2017 ISSUED BY | |
| SUB INSPECT PETITIONER. |
OR OF | POLICE, AROOR TO | |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF 19.6.2017 SU |
APPLIC BMITTE |
ATION IN FORM IX DATED D BY 2ND PETITIONER |
| BEFORE 1ST APPLICATION N |
RESPON O.91538 |
DENT AND NUMBERED AS . |
|
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THIS HON'BLE 2017. |
JUDGM COURT |
ENT DATED 10.8.2017 OF IN W.P(C) NO.26506 OF |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF 57/17 DATED RESPONDENT. |
ORDER 11.9. |
NO.HL 54/17, 56/17 & 2017 PASSED BY 2ND |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF 23.10.2017 FI 1ST RESPONDEN |
MEMOR LED BY T. |
ANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THIS HON'BLE 2017. |
JUDGM COURT |
ENT DATED 7.12.2017 OF IN W.P(C) NO. 39379 OF |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF | ORDER | NO.G(3)8598/2017 DATED |
| 22.11.2017 I PETITIONER. |
SSUED | BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employer is entitled to registration of his own head load worker under Rule 26A despite the area being a scheme covered area.
Whether the rejection of the registration application and the appeal thereon was sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gangadharan C.P. And Another v. Abdul Nasir and OthersFollowed
2016 (5) KHC 238
1 provisions across 1 enactments
City Tarpaulins
Sinesh Francis
The District Labour Officer
The Assistant Labour Officer Cherthala North
Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board Alappuzha District Committee
Easwaran S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
