SURESHKUMAR.R Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises an important question for consideration as to the manner in which an application under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (for short, the "Rules") has to be considered by a Registering Authority for registration of Headload Workers.

(2.) The petitioners, 27 in number, attached to the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) were given registration and identity cards pursuant to the applications made by them before the Assistant Labour Officer, Neyyattinkara, who is a competent Registering Authority under Rule 26 A of the Rules. The identity card specifies the employers and the particular area allotted to them to work as the Headload Workers. These registrations were done in the month of April 2018. The Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), another Headload Workers' Union of that area challenged registration and issuance of identity cards before the District Labour Officer. This was by invoking the appellate provision under Rule 26C of the aforenoted Rules. That appeal appears to have been filed on 25.7.2018. As seen from Rule 26C, the appeal will have to be filed within 60 days and the maximum period provided under the Rule is six months from the date of the order. Acting upon the appeal, the District Labour Officer revoked and cancelled the registration cards issued to the petitioners as per Ext.P25. The order of the District Labour Officer is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) In the impugned order, Ext.P25, it is stated that the Assistant Labour Officer had not followed the procedures contemplated under the law for registering the petitioners. It is also stated that without conducting an enquiry that the petitioners are working under the specified employers in the applications, the registration was granted to them. I am not adverting to previous litigation between the parties in this regard for the obvious reason that in the previous litigation, this Court taking note of the pendency of the appeal filed by CITU directed the District Labour Officer to consider the appeal and ordered that both, the petitioners as well as the employees under CITU, could work till the appeal is disposed.