PRASAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners say that they have been offered permanent employment for loading and unloading works in a business establishment called "Nahlas Grant Hyper Mart", in Thiruvananthapuram; and that they, therefore, applied for registration under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 ('Rules' for short). They allege that, however, without considering any of the germane aspects in its relevant perspective, the Assistant Labour Officer (ALO) rejected their applications, merely saying that the business has not yet commenced; and further that, if any more persons are registered, the employment opportunities of the already registered workers, who are included in the statutory Pool, would suffer.

(2.) The petitioners contend that, since the afore reasons are factually and legally untenable, they preferred appeals, under Rule 26 C of the "Rules", before the Deputy Labour Officer (DLO), who, however, has merely reiterated what has been stated in Ext.P6 and upheld it, while passing his final order, namely Ext.P10. They thus pray that both Exts.P6 and P10 be set aside.

(3.) Sri.G.Sreekumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that the factual findings in Exts.P6 and P10, that the business, where his clients propose to work had not commenced its operations, are untrue and recorded mischievously because, the statements given by them and the employer were to the specific effect that, it had been functioning much before their applications had been preferred. He submitted that this is substantiated by Exts.P3 and P4, which are the GST Registration Certificate and the Receipt issued by the Grama Panchayat to the establishment, as also from Ext.P5 Building Permit obtained by it; and hence, that Exts.P6 and P10 are in gross error. He then argued that, as far as the second reason in the impugned orders - namely that the already registered "Pool workers" would suffer, if other persons are allowed registration as "attached workers" - this has been already answered by this Court in several judgments that the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 ('Act' for short) do not provide for any such protection, but is only intended to regulate. He, thus, reiteratingly prayed that Exts.P6 and P10 be quashed and the competent Authority be directed to offer registration to his clients forthwith.