IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2910 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35869/2004 Dated 31/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): (RESPONDENTS 4,5,7 & 8 IN WRIT PETITION): ------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.Y. AGASTI, S/O. YESUDASAN, PALLIPURUTHUKARAN HOUSE, VADOOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.E. ROBERT, S/O. EYYAPPAN, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, VADOOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. P.D. ABI, S/O. DEVASSY, CHEMBUKKAVU HOUSE, BROTHERS LANE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. K.A. DANYY, S/O. ANTHU, KURUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, PULLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS - R4 & R5 ARE THE WRIT PETITIONERS): ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER-IST CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 3. CHAIRMAN, THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, THRISSUR LOCAL COMMITTEE, JAIHIND BUILDING, THRISSUR-1. 4. C.M. FRANCIS, SECRETARY, THRISSUR GENERAL WORKER'S UNION (CITU), RICE BAZAR, THRISSUR (DIED). WA 2910/07 -2- 5. P.V. SUBRAMANIAN, PRESIDENT, GENERAL MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR. 6. K.I. PAULSON, KUTTIKADAN HOUSE, ANCHERI P.O., THRISSUR. 7. JAISON PAUL, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTANELLUR P.O.,THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R.3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 22/09/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 3002 OF 2007, THE COURT ON 9.10.2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A. Nos.2910 & 3002 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated, the 9th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Mohanan, J. The above two Writ Appeals arose out of the common judgment dated 31.10.2007 in WPC Nos.35869/2004 and 31548/2005. As the challenge in these two Writ Appeals are against the common judgment, where the subject matter is identical and as the parties are same, these two Writ Appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.A.No.2910/2007 is preferred by the respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8 in WPC No.35869/2004 and the petitioners in WPC No.31548/2005 are the appellants in W.A No.3002/2007. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also counsels appearing for the contesting respondents. 4. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge quashed Exts.P4 and P6 in WPC No.35869 of 2004 upon the finding that the registration ordered in favour of the appellants are W.A. 2910 & 3002/07 -:2:- not based on any acceptable materials on record and evidence. In the light of the finding arrived in WPC No.35869/2004 and the consequent relief granted therein, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.C.No.31548/2005. As indicated earlier, the subject matter in these two writ petitions is with respect to the registration of headload workers in Pool No.12A of Sakthan Thampuran Fish Market area at Thrissur under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and Paragraph 6A of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983. In WPC No.35869/2004 preferred by the two unions representing 14 workers who are existing headload workers in the above pool, they are challenging the orders granting registration to 7 workers under Rule 26A of the said Rules. WPC No.31548/2005 is preferred by four workers who claimed to be working under individual employers and sought registration under Rule 26A of the Rules and Paragraph 6A of the Scheme. 5. The learned Single Judge extending the right accrued under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act and Industrial Disputes Act to the Unions and the existing workers, overruled the objection, raised by the appellants who sought registration, on the ground of locus standi and sustained the challenge against the registration granted W.A. 2910 & 3002/07 -:3:- in favour of the individual workers. Secondly, relying upon the decision reported in Jnana Prakasam v. Natarajan (2002 (1) KLT 39), a Division Bench decision of this Court, wherein this Court held that the words “persons aggrieved” in Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1992, would include existing workmen and they are entitled to maintain an appeal against an order under Rule 26A, the Single Bench held that the appeal preferred by the union representing the existing workers is maintainable. 6. On merit, especially on facts, on the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the learned Single Judge found that, after fresh consideration, the ALO had not specifically entered into a finding of his own to the effect that the workers were actually working in the area under the employers in question. The learned Single Judge further found that the ALO simply relied on the order of the DLO to find that the DLO has found that these workers are working in the Sakthan Thampuran Fish Market. Thus, the learned Single Judge concluded that there is no finding by an authority under Rule 26A to the effect that the workers who sought registration are working under any specified employer. It is also found by the learned Single Judge that under Rule 26A, the procedure prescribed requires that on receipt of an application for registration under that W.A. 2910 & 3002/07 -:4:- Rule, the registering authority shall issue notice in form X to the employer or contractor from whom the headload workers claim with copy of the application inviting objections, if any, on such application. But there is no record to show that such a procedure was adopted in the present case. The learned Single Judge, after perusing Ext.R7 (a) series produced by the workmen claiming registration in support of their claim that they are actually working with the employers mentioned therein, in the extracts of registers which are stated to be belonging to four separate and different employers, the handwriting in all of them are identical, which according to the learned Single Judge, are sufficient to cast serious doubt over the authenticity of those documents. The learned Single Judge after perusing Exys.P7 to P9 produced in WPC No.35869/2004, which are declarations by three of the four employers stating that they have not engaged any other workers than those in Pool No.12A, found that the workers seeking registration have not chosen to controvert those documents by filing any additional affidavit. 7. From the above discussion and the finding of the learned Single Judge, it appears that the workers who sought registration under the above provisions have miserably failed to establish their rights by producing acceptable, cogent and supporting materials and W.A. 2910 & 3002/07 -:5:- evidence to substantiate their claim. The available materials, as correctly found by the learned Single Judge, are neither convincing nor supporting to consider the claim on merit. It is also found by the learned Single Judge that especially in the absence of any records or materials, the statutory authorities have not complied with the formalities prescribed by the statute in the matter of giving registration to new workers. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, especially in the light of the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge upon the facts in issue, we find no reason and justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeals are devoid of any merit and the same are dismissed accordingly. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- W.A. 2910 & 3002/07 -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..