The petitioner is aggrieved with the non registration of workers under Rule 26A of the Head Load Workers Rules 1981 (Kerala), (for short 'the Rules'). The petitioner who was conducting a small scale industrial Unit at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Palakkad, applied for registration of four workers under Rule 26A of the Rules. Exts.P2 to P5 are the applications filed by the petitioner. The respondent authorities having refused to consider the same, the petitioner was once before this Court with W.P.(C).4103/2013 and by Ext.P6, there was a direction to consider the applications. The petitioner herein challenges Ext.P7 by which applications were rejected and Ext.P9 by which the Appellate Authority confirmed the said rejection.
2. A reading of Ext.P7 would indicate that the Labour Officer had conducted an inspection in which it was found that, there were no operations being carried on in the premises. It is clear that the Labour Officer has conducted such inspection without notice to the petitioner and nothing is stated as to the time at which the inspection was so conducted. The Appellate Authority also relies on such inspection and further states that the petitioner was not able to substantiate as to when the Industry was commenced. On such reasoning, rejection made by the Original Authority was confirmed by Ext.P9.
3. Before the Appellate Authority and the Original Authority, the petitioner had produced a number of decisions of this Court which unequivocally declared the right of an employer to get registered, the head load workers in its regular employment and thus carry on the loading and unloading work within the establishment, by such registered workers. In fact, in a Scheme covered area without such registration, an establishment would have to concede such loading and unloading work in the establishment, to the pool workers appointed by the Board. It was hence the petitioner had filed the aforesaid applications for registration under Rule 26A. The said position is declared by the decisions reported in Rajeev V. v. District Labour Officer, Kakkanad and Others (2010 (4) KHC 757), V-Star Creations (P) Ltd. v. District Labour Officer (2012 (2) KLT 883) and Baheer P.A. @ Abdul Basheer P.A and Others v. Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor (2012 (3) KHC 650).
4. Coverage of Scheme and existence of pool workers in the area cannot be a reason to decline such registration. The petitioner before this Court, has produced Exts.P10 to P15 which would indicate that the petitioner's operations are being carried on in a regular manner. Further, it is also to be noticed that, despite the assertion of the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority that no operations are carried on, the petitioner has been issued with Ext.P16 notice by the Chairman of the Palakkad Jilla Committee of the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board, the 3rd respondent herein, directing registration and assignment of loading and unloading work to the pool members of the area. It is not clear as to why such a notice was issued, if there is no work carried on in the petitioner's establishment.
5. In such circumstances, Exts.P7 and P9 are illegal and not sustainable and shall stand set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to grant registration under Rule 26A of the Rules, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Exts.P2 to P5 shall stand restored to the files of the 1st respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
Judge
Mrcs //True Copy//