BY AD v. T.C.SURESH MENON

DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER THOZHIL BHAVAN, CIVIL STATION COMPOUND, PALAKKAD COLLECTORATE P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER 3RD CIRCLE, PALAKKAD THOZHIL BHAVAN, CIVIL STATION COMPOUND, PALAKKAD COLLECTORATE P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD PALAKKAD CITY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,, PIN - 678014 DEPOT OFFICER GOVERNMENT TIMBER DEPOT, WALAYAR P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678624 BY ADV Sri.Thomas Abraham, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.18025/2024 ..2.. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. ========================= W.P.(C)No.18025 of 2024 ========================== Dated this the 7th day of June, 2024 JUDGMENT The petitioner impugns Exts.P4 and P6 orders issued by the Assistant Labour Officer and the District Labour Officer, Palakkad, respectively declining their applications for registration under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981(‘Rules’ for short) citing various reasons.

2. Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon – learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed that, in Ext.P4, the Assistant Labour Officer has merely said that, since his clients are engaged in loading and unloading work in the Depot of the Forest Department, but since it is not sufficient work to engage them fully, they have taken up other employment also; and hence that they are not entitled to be registered under Rule 26 A of the Rules. He argued that this is absolutely untenable because, it is solely since the petitioners do not have registration under Rule 26 A, that they are unable to do loading and unloading work outside the Depot; and that the further assertion in the order, that there is no sufficient work or W.P.(C) No.18025/2024 ..3.. sufficient income for the existing workers in the statutory Pool of workers, also stand belied by the assertions of the Depot Manager, who has informed the Authority that more than Rs.65 lakhs had been paid as wages. He then pointed out that the Assistant Labour Officer has also proceeded on the basis that there is an objection raised by the Board and therefore, that he has no jurisdiction to decide the applications. He thus prayed that Ext.P4 be set aside, pointing out that what has been done by the District Labour Officer is merely to subscribe to every finding therein and then to approve it.

3. Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, however, submitted that, as discernible from Exts.P4 and P6, the Authorities have considered every relevant and germane aspect, including that the petitioners were engaged only some of the time as Headload Workers and that the balance time was spent by them in other avocations. He argued that when the number of Pool workers maintained by his client are high, further addition to it, through fresh registrations, is not untenable; and that this has been accepted by the Authorities without error. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Smt.Mable C.Kurian – learned Senior Government W.P.(C) No.18025/2024 ..4.. Pleader, adopted most of the submissions of Sri.Thomas Abraham; however, supplementing it saying that the Authorities were only considering the nature of the work being done by the petitioners and the employment opportunities in the area. She added that, going by both these criteria, Exts.P4 and P6 are without error.

5. As an alternative submission, Smt.Mable C.Kurian submitted that, in case this Court is not inclined to accept Ext.P6 appellate order, then liberty may be reserved to the District Labour Officer to reconsider the matter, adverting to all relevant aspects and take a fresh decision, so that every controversy can be properly resolved.

6. I have examined Exts.P4 and P6, on the touchstone of the various materials and records produced on record.

7. As rightly submitted by Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, both the Authorities have proceeded on two broad premises; namely, a) that the petitioners are working as Headload Workers only part of the time and are engaged in other avocations; and b) that the employment opportunities in the area are less to accommodate any further registration.

8. One fails to understand the purport of the afore findings of the Authorities because, the petitioners specific W.P.(C) No.18025/2024 ..5.. assertion – whether it be true or otherwise – is that they are forced to take up other avocation solely because they are not registered under the Act and Rules and therefore, that the said factum could not have been used against them. As regards the objection of the Board, that there is less employment opportunities in the area, one fails to understand how this could be a reason to deny registration, when there is admittedly nothing in the statutory scheme, which provides for a protectionist regime to the already registered Pool workers.

9. In such perspective, I am certain that the District Labour Officer must reconsider the appeal of the petitioners, adverting to all vital aspects and the contentions of the parties, thus leading to a fresh order without any avoidable delay. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6; with a consequential direction to the District Labour Officer to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioners, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides and following due procedure; thus culminating in an appropriate fresh order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I, however, clarify that I have not entered into the merits of W.P.(C) No.18025/2024 ..6.. any of the rival contentions, but that the afore observations are only for the purpose of this judgment and are not intended to influence or trammel the opinion or competence of the District Labour Officer, who shall act in terms of law and as per the statutory provisions. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE ACR W.P.(C) No.18025/2024 ..7.. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18025/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 Exhibit-P2 Exhibit-P3 Exhibit-P4 Exhibit-P5 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.IX SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 14.6.2023. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.IX SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 14.6.2023. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.IX SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 14.6.2023. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H.L.29/2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 29.7.2023. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 19.8.2023. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.6923/2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 9.10.2023.