SHEREEF Vs. MUHAMMED SHEFEEK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 8/10/2014 in WP(C) No. 4077/2014 and hence heard and decided together. WA No.342/2015 has been filed by the 3rd respondent and WA No.393/2015 has been filed by the 4th respondent. The parties are shown as referred to in the writ petition.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order dated 28/1/2014 of the District Labour Officer, Palakkad by which an appeal filed under Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as '1981 Rules') has been allowed setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Labour Officer and cancelling the cards issued in the name of the petitioners 2 to 5.

(3.) The short facts involved in the writ petition would show that the first petitioner claims to be the Managing Partner of M/s. KPM Trade Centre, a partnership firm. They started a business as dealers and distributors of bricks, tiles, paint and other building materials. The establishment was registered in the year 2013 with the Commercial Tax Department. He filed an application for registering the persons engaged by him for loading and unloading work in the firm and accordingly, the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer had issued identity cards in favour of 5 persons and petitioners 2 to 5 are among them. Sri. Moosa, one of them expired. The 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging the issuance of the cards. In the said appeal, 2nd respondent issued an order dated 4/10/2013 directing stoppage of engagement of the persons already registered for loading and unloading work. Ext.P3 is the said order. Challenging Ext.P3, the first petitioner filed WP(C) No. 24457/13 wherein, this Court passed an interim order permitting the work to be done through registered workers. The writ petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders in the appeal within one month after affording opportunity to either side. It is stated that no decision was taken and in the meantime a contempt case came to be preferred. While so, on 28/1/2014, Ext.P5 order came to be passed by which the registration granted was cancelled. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the procedure enumerated in Rule 26A has not been followed. The main contention urged by the petitioners was that there was no procedural violation as contended, the establishment of the first petitioner is a new establishment and it can have its own employees registered under the Act.