MAJEED Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Pool Leader, is aggrieved by the registration of the 3rd respondent under R. 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (for brevity "the Rules"), as an attached headload worker of the additional 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent was before the original authority, the Assistant Labour Officer, with an application for registration under R.26A. The same was declined by Exhibits P1 and P2. An appeal was filed, wherein the appellate authority found that the employer has confirmed the employment of the 3rd respondent as an attached worker and, hence, the registration under S. 26A ought to be granted.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in Jnana Prakasam v. Natarajan, 2002 1 KerLT 39) to contend that members of a pool within whose jurisdiction the establishment is situated, would be entitled to be heard before a registration is given to an attached worker. The learned counsel would specifically refer to paragraph 9 of the decision to contend that an "aggrieved person" includes the pool worker whose work will be affected if an establishment attaches/engages a regular headload worker. Paragraph 9 reads as under:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents, however, would rely on the very same decision to contend that a proper understanding of the aforecited decision would be that, for considering the grant of registration to an attached worker with respect to an independent establishment, only the establishment and the worker need be heard and that is this dictum which has been followed in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer, 2010 4 KerLT 783). The learned counsel also refers to the following observation in Rajeev :