BHARATH MARKETING, Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm that was constituted to start a wholesale and retail business in rice, vegetable oils etc. Apprehending that the day-to-day working of the establishment would involve loading and unloading work also on regular basis, the 1st petitioner identified petitioners 2 to 5 as workers who would be capable of doing head load work for the 1st petitioner establishment. With a view to getting them registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules, the 1st petitioner along with the petitioners 2 to 5 preferred an application for obtaining registration for petitioners 2 to 5 as head load workers attached to the 1st petitioner establishment. The 1st petitioner also indicated his 'no objection' to the grant of registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules to petitioners 2 to 5 as attached head load workers. The applications preferred by petitioners 2 to 5 were rejected by the Assistant Labour Officer (ALO), who was of the view that the grant of registration to the said petitioners would cause a law and order situation in the scheme covered area. Aggrieved by the said order of the ALO, petitioners 2 to 5 preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority, namely, the District Labour Officer (DLO), Malappuram, the 3rd respondent herein. The said appeals were also dismissed by toeing the same line of reasoning as the ALO, and citing the possible law and order situation as a reason for denying registration to the said petitioners. The petitioners therefore approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.25346/2017, challenging the orders passed by the ALO as also the DLO. By Ext.P8 judgment, this Court found that the rejection of the application submitted on behalf of petitioners 2 to 5 was for extraneous reasons, unconnected with the scheme of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules, and therefore, quashed the impugned orders of the ALO and DLO, and the directed the DLO to pass fresh orders in the matter, after hearing the petitioners. Ext.P9 is the order passed by the DLO consequent to the directions in Ext.P8 judgment of this Court. In Ext.P9 order, the DLO once again rejects the applications preferred by petitioners 2 to 5 on the ground that the 1st petitioner had not produced any documents to establish that petitioners 2 to 5 were his regular employees. A reference is also made to documents that are required to be maintained by a registered employer under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, to suggest that the 1st petitioner had not maintained the required documents under the said Scheme, in his capacity as an employer of petitioners 2 to 5.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Devaprasanth P.J., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Mathew George Vadakkel, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned standing counsel for respondent 4 as also the learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

(3.) When the writ petition came up for admission before this Court, this Court, after hearing the respondents and taking note of the the prior orders passed by the ALO and DLO, passed an interim order dated 11.10.2017, directing the 2nd respondent to provisionally register petitioners 2 to 5 as head load workers in the 1st petitioner establishment, during the pendency of the writ petition. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he has since been informed by the 2nd respondent that the provisional registration has been granted, although the necessary identity cards have not been issued to petitioners 2 to 5.