IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11561 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GRAPHIC SYSTEMS AND COMPANY, MALLAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOSHY THOMAS, AGED 74, S/O.LATE THOMAS, GRAPHICS SYSTEMS & CO. MALLAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOSEPH GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, MALLAPPALLY. 5. K.K.SUKUMARAN, SECRETARY, CITU HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION, CITU TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY (HOME), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R5 BY ADV. MR.T.P.PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WPC 11561 OF 2009-M -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd June 2009 Judgment RAMAN, J. This writ petition was originally filed seeking police protection for doing the loading and unloading work through the permanent employees attached to the establishment of the petitioner. On being brought to the notice of this court and on filing counter affidavit, the petitioner confines its prayer only for a direction to dispose of Exts.P1 and P2 applications filed by it. 2. S.25 read with Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Act provides for registration of headload workers by applying to the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority has to consider the application and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that even if a registration is made as applied for by Exts.P1 and P2, a further registration is required, once the area is a scheme covered area. This contention does not appear to be correct. As per Clause 6(2) of the scheme, it is clear that from the date of WPC 11561/09 2 commencement of the functional operation of the scheme in any area, no headload worker, who is not permanently employed by an employer or contractor shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the scheme applies, unless he is granted a further registration under the provisions of this scheme (emphasis given). The prohibition contained under Rule 6(2) will apply only when a person other than a permanent employee is sought to be employed. Here, the two persons who have applied for registration are stated to be the permanent employees attached to the establishment of the petitioner. If so, the registration under 6(2) is not necessary. In the circumstances, we direct the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P1 and P2 in accordance with law after hearing all interested parties within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance. WPC 11561/09 3 The writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 11561/09 4