IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35332 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS : ------------------ 1. SALIM.K.S, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SAIDHU MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT KURINJILANGAD, MULLARINGAD. P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. HABEEB.N.H, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAINAR RESIDING AT NATHIAKATTUNGAL, MULLARINGAD.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 3. SHIJO SEBASTIAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, RESIDING T PANDOMATTOM, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. M/S.EASTERN CONDIMENTS PVT LTD.REP; BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, M.E.MOHAMED, ADIMALY. 4. THE SECRETARY, CITU, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.N.C.MOHANAN FOR R4 SMT.REKHA C.NAIR FOR R4 SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER FOR R3 SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35332 of 2008(F) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: TRUE COYP OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER R.26A OF THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES, 1981 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETIITONER UNDER R.26A OF THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES, 1981 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER UNDER R.26A OF THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES, 1981 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.06.2008 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.09.2008 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35332 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibits P4 and P5. These orders are passed by the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioners made an application for registration under Rule 26 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981. That application was considered by the second respondent and the same was rejected vide Exhibit P5. Appeal filed against Exhibit P4 before the first respondent was also rejected by Exhibit P5. 3. Reasons stated in Exhibit P4 and reiterated in Exhibit P5 are that the petitioners are not doing the head load works and the establishment is lying closed. Justification given by the petitioners to the 3rd respondent is that the employer engaged the petitioners as attached head load workers, and that they can work only if registration under Rule 26 is granted. In so far as the statement that the establishment is remaining closed is concerned, the explanation is that it is because of the obstruction caused by the Unions and also due to W.P.(C) No. 35332/2008 2 the non-availability of the registered head load workers, the establishment had to be closed. In view of the above, Exhibits P4 and P5 rejecting the application made by the petitioner cannot be sustained. Exhibits P4 and P5 will stand quashed and the second respondent is directed to grant registration based on Exhibits P1 to P3 applications made by the petitioners under Rule 26 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, on the production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm