Registering Authority Cannot Reject Headload Worker Registration Application Based On Objections from Unattached Pool Workers: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has observed that as per the Kerala Loading and Unloading (Regulation of Wages and Restriction of Unlawful Practices) Act, 2002, the registering authority cannot reject an application for registration on the ground that existing pool workers have raised objections.
The court noted that the unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration under Rule 26A to a worker who is attached to an establishment.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that, "the registering authority cannot reject an application for registration on the ground that existing pool workers have raised objections to granting of such registrations. Unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration under Rule 26A to a worker who is attached to an establishment. Their objections can only be raised at a time when an attached worker, who gets registered in terms of Rule 26A relinquishes his employment or engagement with the establishment to which he was attached, and seeks to join the scheme in the area concerned, as a registered but unattached worker."
The petitioners, headload workers employed by traders in the Agricultural Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu, sought registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The Urban Wholesale Market, administered by the Urban Wholesale Market Authority with the District Collector of Ernakulam as Chairman, had implemented the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983.
Their applications for registration were rejected by the registering authority, citing the implementation of the 1983 Scheme and the use of pool workers for loading and unloading tasks. The appellate authority upheld this decision.
The petitioners, aggrieved by this decision, filed writ petitions. They argued that the rejection was based on a misapplication of the judgment, which should not have affected their status as permanent employees entitled to registration. They contended that the Scheme did not preclude permanent employees from being registered as headload workers and that permanent employees in scheme-covered areas had the right to registration under Rule 26A. They also argued that the appellate authority improperly considered objections from pool workers, who had no right to object to their registration.
The respondents countered that the petitioners were migrant workers supplied by labor contractors, not directly employed by the traders in the Wholesale Market. They maintained that pool workers had the right to employment in the market, and that the petitioners were engaged in shop duties, not the primary loading and unloading tasks of headload workers.
The High Court further observed that, "Rule 26C provides that only a person aggrieved by an order of the registering authority under sub-rule (3) or (4) of Rule 26A is entitled to prefer an appeal. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 26C provides that on receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority shall give the employer if any, and the headload worker an opportunity of being heard and decide the appeal. The pool workers will not come within the category of persons aggrieved referred to in Rule 26C. Therefore, they have no right to be heard in the appeal as well."
The petitions were disposed, directing the respondent registering authority to consider the applications afresh.
Cause Title: Jomon Sebastian & Ors. vs Assistant Labour Officer & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
