SOORAJ CHANDRAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this petition is Exhibit P6 order passed by the 2 nd respondent rejecting Exhibit P3 and P4 applications submitted by the petitioners 2 and 3 seeking registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981 in the establishment run by the 1 st petitioner.

(2.) Short facts necessary to be stated for considering the issue raised in this Writ Petition is that the 1 st petitioner decided to commence a business in hardware at Karode and obtained Exhibit P1 D & O license from the panchayath and Exhibit P2 GST registration. He decided to employ petitioners 2 and 3 as his attached headload workers and submitted Exhibits P3 and P4 applications seeking registration. Those applications were considered by the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected by Exhibit P6 order on the ground that the 1 st petitioner has not yet started his business and the petitioners 2 and 3 cannot therefore be said to be headload workers requiring registration.

(3.) Sri.Liju V.Stephen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners have a remedy in approaching the appellate authority, the order passed by the 2 nd respondent being clearly against the law laid down by this Court in Rajeev V. v. District Labour Officer, Kakkanad and Others, [2010 (4) KHC 757]. as approved in Gangadharan v. Abdul Nasir, [2016 (4) KLT, 592], this Court will be justified in interfering and in directing reconsideration of the matter. He would point out that it is not a requirement under the provisions of the Rules or the Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 that the workers who seek registration should be registered as previous employees in the establishment.