MUHAMMED SHAFEEK Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext. P5 order of the first respondent dated 28.1.2013 allowing an appeal filed under R. 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short). The Rules are issued under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). As per Ext. P5', the registrations granted to petitioners 2 to 5 Under the Act, as well as Ext. P2 identity cards have been cancelled. The first petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s. KPM Trade Centre, a partnership firm. Since the first petitioner was desirous of having his own permanent workers to attend to the headload work of his establishment, he had submitted applications for the grant of registration to petitioners 2 to 5 who are stated to be his workers. The first petitioner s establishment is anew establishment and Ext. Pl is the Certificate of Registration issued by the Commercial Taxes Department to it. The applications for registration submitted by the petitioners were considered by the second respondent and granted. Thereafter, Ext. P2 identity cards were issued to the workers. It is submitted that one of the workers has expired after the grant of such registration and, that only petitioners 2 to 5 are left. The third respondent is the Secretary of the Trade Union representing the workers of the Headload Workers Pool of the area. He challenged Ext. P2 registration in an appeal filed under R. 26 C of the Rules. As per order dated 4.10.2013, the Appellate Authority directed the registration to be kept in abeyance. The said order is Ext. P3. The petitioners challenged Ext. P3 in W.P.(C) No. 24457 of 2013. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext. P4 judgment directing the appeal filed by the third respondent to be disposed of within a period of one month. The registration granted to the petitioners was directed to continue. It was thereafter that the appeal was heard by the first respondent and allowed by Ext. P5 as stated above. This Writ Petition was admitted on 11.2.2014 and an interim order of stay granted against Ext. P5 is still in force.

(2.) According to Adv. Sri. Aravindkumar Babu, who appears for the petitioners, the appeal itself was not maintainable before the first respondent for the reason that the third respondent is not an aggrieved person under R. 26 C of the Rules. It is contended that, the third respondent could have had any grievance only if afresh headload worker was sought to be granted registration as an unattached worker. The petitioners being permanent workers in a private establishment, stand on an entirely different footing. They discharge only the work allotted to them by their employer, in their capacity as permanent workers of the establishment. Since, the employer has the freedom to get the work of his establishment done through workers of his choice, he had sought for registration of his workers under the Rules.

(3.) In such a situation, the third respondent is not a person coming within the scope of "person aggrieved" mentioned in the Rule. On the merits also, according to the counsel Ext. P5 is unsustainable for the reason that, the fourth respondent, Headload Workers Welfare Committee, had been served with notice but had not responded to the same. The fourth respondent had also not filed any appeal against Ext. P2. Therefore, the said respondent cannot be heard to contend that, no notice was received by him. Reliance is placed on a number of decisions of this Court also.