IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 38087 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. SULAIMAN,S/O. MUSTHAFA,MOOKKADA HOUSE CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 2. ABU, S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED KUNNAPPILLY, CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 3. IBRAHIM,S/O. BEERAN, ERATH HOUSE CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 4. SALIMON,S/O. BEERAN, VILAYAMVELI HOUSE CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 5. FIROZ, S/O. ALIYAR, PALAKKAL HOUSE CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 6. SHAJAHAN,S/O. KUNJU MUHAMMED CHIRAYAKKADAN HOUSE CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 7. ALTHAF,S/O. MARAKKARU PILLAI INCHAKKUDY HOUSE, CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 8. SIDDIQUE,S/O.ABOOBACKER MATTATHIL HOUSE, CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 9. ALIYAR, S/O.PAREED, PATTARUMADATHIL CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 WP(C).No. 38087 of 2007 10. SIDDIQUE,S/O. MOIDEEN THACHARUKUDY,CHEERANKUZHIKARA, MUDICAKL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 547 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.) SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MAHMOOD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R3: T.B. ABDUL KAREEM AGED 54 YEARS S/O. BUHARI, THUKALILL HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, ANAS TIMBERS, BUILDING NO.453B, CHEERANKUZHI, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. PIN – 683 547. ADDL.R4: T.A. MUHAMMED, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. ALIYAR, THACHURUDY HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, BISMILLAH TIMBERS, BUILDING NO. 453C, CHEERANKUZHI, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN – 683 547. (ADDLR3 & R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.574 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C)NO.38087/2007 DATED 15.1.2008) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T. MAHMOOD SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 38087 of 2007 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT GRANTING REGISTRATION ONLY TO 6 HEAD LOAD WORKERS OUT OF 19 APPLICANTS AND REFUSED REGISTRATION TO THE REMAINING 13 APPLICANTS INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF R1 DISMISSED THE APPEAL. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.38087 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners claim to be Headload workers working in Cheerankuzhi in Ward No.7 of Vazhakkulam Grama Panchayat. They along with 9 others filed applications for registration as attached head load workers of other employers under the Kerala Head Load Worker's Rules. Six of them were granted registration and the applications for registration of the other 13 including the petitioners were rejected by Ext.P1 order. An appeal filed against Ext.P1 order was rejected by Ext.P2. The petitioners are challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders. Petitioners 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 claim that they are attached workers of the 3rd respondent and the other petitioners claim that they are attached workers of the 4th respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed counter affidavits in support of the claims of the petitioners. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs. “(a) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ order or direction setting aside Exts.P1&P2 to the W.P.(c)No.38087/07 2 extent to which they refused registration as head load workers to the petitioners. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction compelling the respondents to register the petitioners as head load workers at Cheerankuzhi in Ward No.7 of Vazhakkulam Grama Panchayat under the Kreala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and the Rules and the Scheme made thereunder. The petitioners’ contention is that in view of the fact that they have satisfied all conditions of registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. They could not have been denied registration and therefore Exts.P1 and P2 orders are unsustainable and liable to be set aside directing grant of registration to them also. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in paragraph 2 of which it is stated thus: “At the outset itself this respondent is denied that the petitioners were the headload workers in Cheerankuzhy in Vazhakkulam, as on the date of application on 13.10.2003. Vazhakkulam Grama Panchayat is an area notified under the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Scheme but the functional operation of the scheme was not implemented as on the date of Ext.P1. Admitted that the petitioners have submitted application under 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules 1981 in Form No.IX before the 1 st respondent. In Column No.II of the applications the petitioners P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8 and P9 have mentioned that they were the headload workers of Anas Timber Mouloodupura. Petitoners P4, W.P.(c)No.38087/07 3 P5, P10 have mentioned that they were under the employment of Bismilla Timbers, Mouloodupuram. Admitted that the employer of Anas Timbers has filed a letter dated 7.9.2007 before the 2nd respondent that the petitioners P2, P6, P9 and P10 are doing loading and unloading work in his establishment and in the surrounding area. But in the application of the petitioner P10 the name of Anas Timbers is not mentioned in Column 2: instead he has mentioned therein that he was doing loading or unloading work in Bismilla Timbers. The employer of Bismi Timbers (Not Bismilla Timbers as seen in Writ petition) has given his consent in his letter dated 7.9.2007, filed before the 2nd respondent, that P3, P8, P7 were doing loading and unloading work in his establishment and in the surrounding area. But the applications filed by those petitioners do not contain the name of the said establishment. In respect of P1, P4 and P5 both the establishments have not given their consent before the 2nd respondent. Petitioners P3, P7 P8 has claimed in their application that they were employed in Anas Timbers but the Anas Timbers has not given consent in respect of their employment. Petitioner P10 has claimed that he was employed in Bismi Timbers. But Bismi Timbers has not given such a consent. In respect of P1, P4 and P5 none of the establishment gave consent. Therefore only in respect of P2, P6 and P9, the employers of the establishment, mentioned in Column 2 of the application have given their consent accordingly. Admitted that 1st respondent has issued P1 and 2nd respondent has issued P2.” The petitioners could not explain discrepancy in their original applications pointed out as above. One cannot assume that a headload worker would mistakenly state the name of his employer in the application for registration. That being so, W.P.(c)No.38087/07 4 except that of petitioners 2, 6 and 9 I am satisfied that the claims of the other 7 petitioners cannot be genuine. Therefore I do not find any merit in the claims of the petitioners other than petitioners 2, 6 and 9. Accordingly, in so far as petitioners 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are concerned this writ petition is dismissed. In respect of petitioners 2, 6 and 9 there would be a direction to the 1st respondent to grant them registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules as attached workers of the employers mentioned in their applications. Orders in this regard shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.38087/07 5