Regulatory Authorities Can't Misinterpret Judgments Erroneously To Deny Registration To Permanent Employees: Kerala High Court

Background Facts

The petitioners are headload workers employed by the traders in shops located at the Agricultural Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu. The Wholesale Market is administered by the Urban Wholesale Market Authority constituted by the Government of Kerala, with the District Collector, Ernakulam, serving as the Chairman. The Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (Scheme), was implemented in the Wholesale Market.

The petitioners submitted applications for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. However, their applications were rejected by the registering authority, citing various reasons, including the implementation of the 1983 Scheme and the engagement of pool workers for loading and unloading work in the market. The appellate authority also upheld the decision of registering authority, citing a judgment (Ext. P128(a)) concerning police protection for traders against pool workers.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the writ petitions.

The petitioners contended that the rejection of their applications for registration as headload workers was based on the misapplication of judgment (Ext. P128(a)) which favoured the engagement of pool workers for loading and unloading work in the Wholesale Market. However, this judgment should not have been applied to their applications, as they were permanent employees of the market entitled to registration. The petitioners further asserted that the Scheme did not precluded the registration of permanent employees of the Wholesale Market as headload workers. They argued that permanent employees of establishments in scheme-covered areas have the right to apply for and obtain registration under Rule 26A, despite the judgment. They further argued that the appellate authority erred in considering objections raised by pool workers, as these workers have no right to object to the registration of permanent employees.

The respondent argued that the petitioners were migrant workers who were never directly employed by the traders in the Wholesale Market but were supplied by labor supply contractors. They contended that the pool workers have the right to employment in the market, as established by Ext. P128(a) judgment. They argued that the petitioners were engaged for works inside the shops and not for loading and unloading works, which were the primary duties of headload workers in the market.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the Ext. P128(a) judgment, which recognized the rights of pool workers in the Wholesale Market, did not precluded permanent employees from applying for registration as headload workers. The court emphasized that the rejection of the petitioners' applications solely based on the Ext. P128(a) judgment was unjustified. The court clarified that permanent employees of establishments in scheme-covered areas could indeed seek registration as headload workers.

The court further observed that unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration to attached workers, and their objections can only be raised when an attached worker seeks to join the scheme as a registered but unattached worker. The court relied on the case of Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board, Sub office v. Nishad M.P and Others, wherein the Kerala High Court held 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, as 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.

Furthermore, the court noted that the appellate authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the appeals without proper consideration of the evidence and by allowing pool workers to participate in the appeal proceedings, which they were not entitled to according to the rules. The court directed the registering authority to reconsider the petitioners' applications.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petitions were disposed of.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 349

Case No. : WP(C) NO. 13067 & 13978 OF 2023

Case Name : Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors

Counsel for the Petitioners : Vinay Kumar Varma & S. Shyam

Counsel for the Respondents : K.S. Arun Kumar, Saji Varghese & C.S. Ajith Prakash