High Court Kerala High Court

Salim.K.S vs District Labour Officer on 19 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Salim.K.S vs District Labour Officer on 19 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35332 of 2008(F)


1. SALIM.K.S, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SAIDHU
                      ...  Petitioner
2. HABEEB.N.H, AGED 26 YEARS,
3. SHIJO SEBASTIAN, AGED 23 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR.

3. M/S.EASTERN CONDIMENTS PVT LTD.REP; BY

4. THE SECRETARY, CITU, PERUMBAVOOR.

                For Petitioner  :SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.C.MOHANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :19/01/2009

 O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

—————————

W.P.(C) No. 35332 of 2008

————————————
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibits P4 and P5.

These orders are passed by the respondents 1 and 2.

2. The petitioners made an application for registration under

Rule 26 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981. That

application was considered by the second respondent and the same was

rejected vide Exhibit P5. Appeal filed against Exhibit P4 before the

first respondent was also rejected by Exhibit P5.

3. Reasons stated in Exhibit P4 and reiterated in Exhibit P5

are that the petitioners are not doing the head load works and the

establishment is lying closed. Justification given by the petitioners to

the 3rd respondent is that the employer engaged the petitioners as

attached head load workers, and that they can work only if registration

under Rule 26 is granted. In so far as the statement that the

establishment is remaining closed is concerned, the explanation is that

it is because of the obstruction caused by the Unions and also due to

W.P.(C) No. 35332/2008
2

the non-availability of the registered head load workers, the

establishment had to be closed.

In view of the above, Exhibits P4 and P5 rejecting the application

made by the petitioner cannot be sustained. Exhibits P4 and P5 will

stand quashed and the second respondent is directed to grant

registration based on Exhibits P1 to P3 applications made by the

petitioners under Rule 26 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, on

the production of copy of this judgment.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

scm