(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two writ petitions; W.P(C).25860 of 2021 preferred by the establishment against the orders dtd. 5/7/2021 of the Assistant Labour Officer and dtd. 3/11/2021 of the District Labour Officer rejecting the application for registering the employees as headload workers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'first writ petition') and W.P(C).No.8909 of 2021 titled as Sri.Siddique Akbar and others Vs.State of Kerala wherein writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought for issuing directions to the 4th respondent Assistant Labour Officer to take a call on the representation dtd. 1/3/2022 submitted by the petitioners to verify and register the records maintained under Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act for the purpose of ascertaining whether the person on whose behalf the applications for registration under Rule 26A of the Rules were included in the register of the workers or not (hereinafter referred to as 'second writ petition').
(2.) First writ petitioner is claiming to be a partnership firm dealing in tiles, sanitary wares, hardwares, bathroom fittings, plumbing etc., in Kalpatta, Wynad district. It has a showroom situated near Water Authority, Kalpatta, three godowns and one branch within the radiance of 1.5 kilometers. For carrying out the aforementioned had already been issued a trade licence by the Municipality on 9/6/2021 Ext.P2 and registration under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act had also been obtained as evident from Ext.P3 requiring the service of skilled and trained head load workers for the purpose of carrying out loading and unloading work in the main showroom and also in the branch/three godowns. Skilled labours were appointed for the said purpose as it had been dealing with costly marbles, vitrified and ceramic tiles. An application for registration of fifteen (15) headload workers, exclusively for such purpose, under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) was submitted. The area under which the showroom was situated falls under the scheme promulgated under Sec. 13 of the Act as evident from the application Exts.P5 and P19.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Labour Officer dismissed the application vide impugned order dtd. 5/7/2021 in a most mechanical and sketchy manner and appeal taken before the Appellate Authority i.e., District Labour Officer had also resulted into dismissal on the ground that in case the persons who sought to be registered for the purpose of unloading and loading having a particular skill would take away the right of livelihood of other head load workers already registered under the Act in view of the existence of the scheme. The said orders are liable to be set aside as the said decision is against the dictum of various judgments and also Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The prime reason assigned by the District Labour Officer was that in case of allowing the application, the Welfare Fund Board would not be able to collect contributions and would adversely be affected. Once the objections were filed by the Welfare Board, the authority was enjoined upon obligation to register the head load workers by issuing the Registration Certificate, even if the workers had been discharging the duties higher than what they were entitled into. It is owing to the pandemic certain kind of duties which were in existence have been truncated by the establishment in order to sustain, such applications were filed since they had the skill and knowledge of handling the particular material which petitioners' firm was dealing with. The impugned orders are against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in 2016 (5) KHC 238 Ganngadharan C.P. and another Vs. Abdul Naseer and others. Impleadment of the local head load workers an opposition would reveal that it is a clear cut case of violation of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.