HOTEL RAJ INTERNATIONAL Vs. HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a partnership firm conducting a hotel at Chengannur represented by its Managing Partner. According to the Petitioner he is conducting a Hotel and Bar in the same premises. He has a number of permanent employees under him working in various capacities as cooks, waiters, cleaning personnel, persons who do the house keeping work and so on. The Petitioner's establishment is engaged in conducting a Hotel and Bar that does not require the services of head load workers. Nor does his establishment undertake any loading and unloading work in a regular manner. Occasionally provisions are brought to his establishment or bottles of liquor are supplied, which are all unloaded by his permanent employees as part of their regular duties. In fact, the Petitioner's case is that his permanent employees attend to whatever loading or unloading work that may occasionally arise in his hotel, as part of their normal duties. Therefore, he is not an 'employer' as defined by the Kerala Head load Workers Act, 1978. Nor is the said Act applicable to him or his establishment.

(2.) In spite of the above, the second Respondent issued Exhibit P-1 notice to him under the Kerala Head load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (the 'Scheme' for short) requiring him to register himself as an employer under para.7 thereof. It is also directed that he should seek the services of registered Head load workers under the second Respondent for the purpose of attending to the work of loading and unloading in his establishment. The Petitioner replied to Exhibit P-1 by Exhibit P-2. In Exhibit P-2, the Petitioner explained that there was no employee in his establishment coming within the scope of the authority of the second Respondent. He also pointed out that his employees were covered by the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Workers Welfare Fund Act and that he was regularly remitting the contributions payable in respect of his employees, under the said Act. Therefore, he requested for all further action in the matter to be dropped. However, the second Respondent did not accept the explanation in Exhibit P-2 but issued Exhibit P-4 proceedings intimating the Petitioner that in all establishments coming within the area of operation of the Scheme, it is the right of the employees registered under para.6A thereof to attend to the loading and unloading work. He has also informed that the omission to get himself registered as directed in Exhibit P-1 would entail the initiation of prosecution proceedings against him. Therefore he has been issued with a form for registration along with Exhibit P-4,

(3.) According to the Petitioner the activity of the Petitioner is confined to the conduct of a Hotel and Bar where no loading or unloading work arises in the normal course of his business. The marginal loading or unloading work that arises in connection with his activity extends only for a maximum of one hour duration every two or three weeks. The said work is attended to by his permanent workers on a casual basis and forms part of their normal duties. Since the Petitioner is not engaging any head load worker in his establishment, he is not an employer under the Act and is not liable to be registered. It is pointed out that as a matter of common knowledge the activity of conducting a hotel and bar does not necessitate attending to head load work. Any such work is rare and occasional, it is submitted.