IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5608 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.S.VIJAYAN, S/O. STANSILAS, AGED 45, DISTRICT SECRETRY, JANATHIPATHYA HARBOUR WORKERS UNION, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT MARIYALAYAM, KAVANAD.P.O., KOLLAM-3. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM. 5. THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. *ADDL. R6. IMPLEADED: 6. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOLLAM LOCAL, USHUS BUILDING, KALLUPALAM, KOLLAM – 1. *ADDL. R6. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/03/10 IN I.A. NO.3506/10. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.M. MANOJ, ADDL. R6 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, S.C, K.H.L.W.W.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5608/2010-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 17/06/2009 BY THE STATE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER'S UNION BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LIST OF 26 WORKERS BELONGING TO PETITIONER'S UNION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. ON 03/07/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH LEADERS OF OTHER LABOUR UNIONS BEFORE THE R.1. REQUESTING TO CONSIDER THEIR DEMAND. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 14/08/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 03/08/2009 UNDER R.T.I ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM VIDE LETTER NO.G1.2199/09 DTD. 10/08/2009. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSION, KOLLAM AS PER LETTER NO.G.2159/09 DTD. 17/08/2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 05/10/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DLO, KOLLAM. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE LETTER NO. 540/09 DTD. 06/10/2009 DTD. 06/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE ALO, KOLLAM. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 08/10/2009 UNDER RTI ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ALO. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE LETTER NO. 540/09 DT. 12/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE ALO. EXT.P.12: COPIES OF REJECTION LETTERS ISSUED BY THE ALO. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IR(2)4535/09 DTD. 17/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE DLO. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED BY VARIOUS DAILIES. EXT.P.15: COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES OF EXPERIENCE IN RESPECT OF MEMBERS OF PETITIONER'S UNION. EXT.P.16: COPIES SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY SOME OF THE MEMBERS INCLUDING THE PETITIONER ON INDIVIDUAL BASIS AS CONTEMPLATED IN RULE 26A OF THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS RULES. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ONE OF THE APPLICANTS OF PETITIONER'S UNION MR. RATHEESHKUMAR PURSUANT TO R.26 A REGISTRATION BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA ON 09/12/07. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 5608 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the District Secretary of the Janathipathya Harbour Workers Union, a trade union representing the interests of about 26 workers who sought registration as headload workers under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workes Rules, 1981. By Ext.P12 series of orders, the Assistant Labour Officer, First Circle, Civil Station, Kollam rejected the applications submitted by the said workers for registration as headload workers under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules on the ground that the main avocation of the applicant is not headload work. Aggrieved thereby, the employees filed separate appeals before the District Labour Officer, Kollam, the appellate authority constituted under rule 26 C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. By Ext.P3 order passed on 17.12.2009 the appellate authority rejected the appeals. Hence this writ petition. 2. I heard Sri C.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri T.N.Manoj, learned Government Pleader for Wpc 5608/2010 2 respondents 1 to 5 and Sri Koshy George, learned standing counsel for Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board, the additional 6th respondent herein. A reading of Ext.P12 series of order and Ext.P13 order discloses that the application for registration submitted by the 26 workers whom the petitioner represents, were rejected on the ground that petitioners have not proved that they are doing loading and unloading work. In other words, their application for registration as headload workers were rejected on the ground that they are not doing loading and unloading work in any particular establishment. The same is the stand taken in the counter affidavit. However, it is not in dispute that registration as headload workers was granted to about 400 workers and identity cards have also been issued to them. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Rajeev V. District Labour Officer and others (ILR 2010(4) Kerala 714) elaborately considered the scheme underlying rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, and held that for getting registration as headload worker under Rule 26A, what is required is a good physical abililty. It was held that it is not necessary that the applicant should have been working under an employer to be Wpc 5608/2010 3 eligible for such registration. In the instant case, the applications submitted by 26 workers whom the petitioner represents, were rejected on the ground that the petitioners are not doing loading and unloading work. The said reasoning cannot be sustained in the light of the interpretation placed by this Court on rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workes Rules. The appellate authority rejected the appeal for the very same reason. In such circumstances, it has to be necessarily held that the stand taken by the registering authority/appellate authority cannot be sustained. In the result, I allow the writ petition and quash Ext.P12 series and Ext.P13 orders and direct the 5th respondent to pass revised orders on the applications for registration submitted by the petitioners, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Rajeev's case (supra). Revised orders on the applications for registration submitted by 26 workers shall be passed expeditiously and in any event, within six weeks from the date on which petitioner produces a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the decision of this Court in Rajeev (supra) before the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent shall follow the procedure Wpc 5608/2010 4 prescribed in rule 26C before passing revised orders on the applications for registration. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE lgk