IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17336 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M.M.BABU, S/O.M.M.MATHAI, AGED 38 YEARS, MUTHIRAKALAYIL HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 554. 2. M.K.ELDHOSE, S/O.M.M.KURIAKOSE, AGED 39 YEARS, MUTHIRAKALAYIL HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 554. 3. M.V.ELDHOSE, S/O.M.P.VARKEY, AGED 38 YEARS, MEPRATHUMALIL HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 554. BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR LOCAL COMMITTEE, KUTTANPILLAI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. ASST. LABOUR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. KERALA STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION, MALAYAMPURATHUPADY UNIT, VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 554, REP. BY THE MANAGER OF ITS WAREHOUSE AT MALAYAMPURATHUPADY. 4. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION(CITU), REG.NO.388/74, MALAYAMPURATHUPADY UNIT, VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 554, REP. BY ITS POOL LEADER, T.K.SANTHOSH. WP(C).No. 17336 of 2009 -2- 5. INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS (INTUC), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, VALANJAMBALAM, KOCHI-16, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, T.P.HASSAN. 6. M.K. ELDHO, MEPRATHUMALI HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY SRI. SC, SRI. RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY FOR R1 SRI. ELVIN PETER FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 17462 OF 2009 AND WPC NO. 17675 OF 2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) Nos.17336, 17462 & 17675 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th June,2009 J U D G M E N T Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions which have been heard together and therefore they are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the facts highlighted in WPC No.17675 of 2009. 2. Petitioners 1 and 2 claim to be bona fide headload workers working in the Campanyppady area in Vengola Panchayat near Perumbavor. They along with 33 other headload workers submitted applications to the 1st respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer, for registration under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. Applications are pending. 3. In the meanwhile, they understood that a new godown of the Beverages Corporation has been established at Vengola Near Perumbavoor. The Corporation requires 20 headload workers on a daily W.P ( C) Nos.17336, 17462 & 17675 of 2009 2 wage basis. Only registered headload workers are entitled to carry on work. It seems that contesting respondents 4 to 26 have applied for registration before the competent authority. Such applications are eligible to be considered, in accordance with law. 4. Similar contentions have been taken up in other writ petitions also with a difference that in some of the cases petitioners are already registered under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. The main grievance arises from Exhibit-P5 communication issued by the Perumbavoor Local Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board. It is seen from Exhibit-P5 communication dated 10.6.2008 sent by the Local Committee to the Assistant Labour Officer that they have recommended issuance of identity cards and grant of registration under Rule 26A of the Rules in relation to 23 workers. Petitioners contend that the Local Committee is making an attempt to interfere with the exercise of statutory power by the registering authority under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. It is therefore that they have challenged Exhibit-P5 as W.P ( C) Nos.17336, 17462 & 17675 of 2009 3 beyond the authority granted to a local committee under the Headload Workers Rules. 5. Learned standing counsel for the Headload Workers Welfare Board, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, submits that Sub Rule 2 of 26A of the Rules provides a procedure to be followed by the registering authority on receipt of an application for registration from a Head load worker in terms of Rule 26A of the Rules. Registering Authority shall issue notice in Form X to the employers or contractors and since the area in question is a scheme covered area he shall issue notice on the application to the Chairman of the Local Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board. A notice in this regard was issued to the 3rd respondent on the applications filed by the contesting respondents. Exhibit-P5 was given in response to the said notice. It indicates the view taken by the Local Committee on the applications filed by the persons seeking registration. It does not indicate anything else or more as contended by the petitioners. W.P ( C) Nos.17336, 17462 & 17675 of 2009 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the registering authority is sought to be compelled to register the applicants and issue identity cards and Exhibit- P5 will have to be considered in such a manner. 7. The Registering Authority under the Headload Workers Rules is an independent statutory authority while dealing with the applications for registration. He exercises statutory power which can also be characterised as quasi judicial. He cannot be dictated to by any authority or by anybody, including the Local Committee of the Headload Workers Welfare Board. Exhibit-P5 can only be considered as the opinion given by the Local Committee in response to a notice issued to them under Rule 26A of the Rules. It is up to the registering authority, the 1st respondent, to take an independent decision considering the applications filed by the applicants. He shall consider the objections submitted by the objectors including the petitioners and any material which he has collected in the course of the enquiry. He shall take a final decision on the application after notice to the applicants, objectors and the Local Committee of the W.P ( C) Nos.17336, 17462 & 17675 of 2009 5 Headload Workers Welfare Board. Since I am only directing the Assistant Labour Officer to take an independent decision as the statutory authority, I have not thought it necessary to issue notice to the contesting respondents who are the applicants., I reiterate that a decision on the application shall be taken only after notice to the applicants and the objectors including the petitioners in the writ petition as also the Local Committee of the Headload Workers Welfare Board. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) Nos.17336, 17462 & 17675 of 2009 6 W.P ( C) Nos.17336, 17462 & 17675 of 2009 7