KUMARAN Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners call into question the correctness of Ext.P6 order of the 2ndrespondent - Assistant Labour Officer, which has been confirmed in Appeal by the 1strespondent - Divisional Labour Officer, Kannur, through Ext.P8. They assert that both the impugned orders are erroneous and have been issued without proper application of mind; and therefore, that they are liable to be set aside.

(2.) Sri.R.Sudhish - learned counsel for the petitioners, explained that his clients are permanent employees of the 4th respondent and that they applied for registration under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), making applications under Rule 26A thereof. He pointed out that, instead of considering these applications on merits, both the 1stand 2ndrespondents rejected them, merely saying that its approval would cause loss of employment to the already registered 'pool workers' in the area. He argued that this is impermissible and would foster protectionism, which is not allowable under the provisions of the Statutory Scheme. He added that the area where the 4th respondent is carrying on business is not covered by any Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), though it has been so stated in Exts.P6 and P8; and thus reiteratingly prayed that the said orders be set aside and the 2ndrespondent be directed to reconsider the applications of his clients, in terms of law.

(3.) Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar - learned Standing Counsel for the 3rdrespondent - Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, however, argued that there is no error in Exts.P6 or P8 because, if applications of persons like the petitioners are considered and allowed in an indiscriminate manner, it would cause prejudice to the already registered 'pool workers' maintained by his client. He added that it is not a case of protectionism, but a matter of caution that the lives of the existing workers be not detrimentally affected. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.