RAGHUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 1 to 3 state that they are appointed as headload workers by SARASHH DISTRIBUTORS, of which the 5th respondent is the Managing Partner. The Firm deals with life saving medicines, other pharmaceuticals and supplements. Most of the products dealt with by the Firm are fragile and sophisticated. The petitioners have undergone rigorous training for handling the products.

(2.) The petitioners submitted Exts.P7, P8 and P9 applications to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Labour Officer seeking registration as headload workers attached to the establishment of the 5th respondent, under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. On receipt of Exts.P7 to P9, the 2nd respondent visited the establishment premises on 27/4/2024. The petitioners and the 5th respondent were present in the premises. The 5th respondent gave a statement to the 2nd respondent to the effect that they require skilled labourers for handling fragile and sophisticated medicines. The 5th respondent stated that the petitioners are trained staff.

(3.) The 2nd respondent verified Exts.P1 to P3 appointment orders issued to the petitioners. Due to the delay in getting GST registration, the commencement of the business was delayed. The establishment had already obtained licence from the Local Self Government Institution. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the applications for registration filed by the petitioners stating that the establishment is not maintaining registers as required under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the Rules and that the establishment has not yet commenced business operations.