IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3169 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DELUXE BOTTLES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, 7/764, BALASUBRAMANIYA RICE MILL, CHULLIMADA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD 678 921, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. V.RAJAGOPAL. 2. MR. S.ARULDAS AROKIASAMI, S/O. SIVARAMAN, KUNNEKADU HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY P.O., PALAKKAD. 3. MR. P.V. BABU, S/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHIYAVEEDU, CHITTARIPARAMBU, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. 4. MR. S. RAVIKUMAR, S/O. SIVARAMAN, KUNNEKADE HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER (IIIRD CIRCLE), PALAKKAD. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. THE CHAIRPERSON, HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD LOCAL COMMITTEE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SHRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.3169 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P6 to P8 orders of the 1st respondent, whereby the applications of petitioners 2 to 4 for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers' Rules, have been rejected, and Exts.P12 to P14 orders, whereby the appeals preferred by petitioners 2 to 4 against Exts.P6 to P8 have been dismissed. 2. The 1st petitioner is an establishment which employs headload workers in the course of their business. They already employ permanent headload workers of their own registered under Rule 26A of the Rules. They have decided to engage further permanent headload workers of their own in the establishment in view of increase in permanent headload work in their establishment. They decided to employ petitioners 2 and 4 also as their permanent headload workers. Accordingly, as required under Rule 26A, petitioners 2 to 4 submitted applications for registration under Rule 26A as permanent headload workers of the 1st petitioner. Those applications have been rejected by the 1st respondent and the appeals were dismissed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that if the 1st petitioner wants additional headload workers, they have to engage headload workers from the 2 pool as provided under the Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act in so far as the area where the establishment functions is notified under the Scheme. The petitioners submit that under the Headload Workers Act there is no limitation in the number of permanent headload workers an employer can get employed and get registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. 3. The counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that an employer gets an opportunity to get permanent workers registered under Rule 26A only once and once such permanent headload workers have been so registered, if the 1st petitioner wants to engage additional headload workers, he can engage headload workers only from the pool. The counsel for the 3rd respondent relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732 (F.B)] in support of his contention. He relies on the following sentences in paragraph 20 of that decision; “20. If, in an area where the Scheme is made applicable, the employer requires services of headload workers other than those whom he had permanently employed, he has necessarily to get them alloted through the committee.”, and the following sentences in paragraph 24 of said judgment. “24.... (7) It is open to the employer to engage his permanent headload workers attached to his establishment to do the loading and unloading work whether it is in an area where the Scheme is made applicable or not. (8) But, in an area where the Scheme is made applicable, if the employer requires additional workers, he has to get them through the committee formed under S.18 and in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. In an area where the Scheme is not made applicable, there is no such obligation on the part of the employer and he 3 can engage workers of his own choice. But he will be bound to comply with the provisions of R.27 in respect of such headload workers also....” The 3rd respondent also relies on Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, which reads thus: “26A.Registration of Headload Workers:- (1) Any headload worker may submit his application for registration in Form IX to the Registering Authority concerned, with as many additional copies as there are employers or contractors from whom he claims to work.” 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am unable to agree with the counsel for the 3rd respondent. If such a contention is accepted, that would amount to a travesty of justice. An employer when he starts his industry may require only one headload worker, whom he may get registered under Rule 26A. But when his business expends he would necessarily have to employ further permanent headload workers. In so far as the engagement of permanent workers is not prohibited, provided they are registered under Rule 26A, a employer cannot be prevented from getting his further permanent headload workers registered under Rule 26A. In fact the sentences quoted by the counsel for the 3rd respondent from the Full Bench decision do not lay down any different law. The sentences relied on merely say that if any additional work occurs in the establishment of the employer, he has to get the headload workers from the pools. That does not in any way prohibit the employer from getting further permanent headload workers 4 registered under Rule 26A. Section 26 of the Act also does not prohibit such further permanent headload workers being engaged under Rule 26A. What the Full Bench decision and Section 26 lay down is that if there is any additional work is available in excess of what the registered permanent headload workers of the establishment can do, then the same shall be done by engaging workers from the pool and the employer cannot engage workers of his choice. 6. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to register petitioners 2 to 4 as permanent headload workers of the 1st petitioner under Rule 26A as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge