{"id":156508,"date":"2009-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009"},"modified":"2014-04-26T09:53:51","modified_gmt":"2014-04-26T04:23:51","slug":"anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 10021 of 2009(W)\n\n\n1. ANOOP K.A., AGED 30 (THIRTY) YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. ANEESH K.A., AGED 29 (TWENTY NINE)YEARS,\n3. JISSAR M.M., AGED 21 (TWENTY ONE)YEARS,\n4. RATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 26 (TWENTY SIX)\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,\n\n3. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,\n\n4. HEADLOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION\n\n5. HEADLOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SREESAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :23\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.\n\n                      ==================\n\n                       W.P.(C).No. 10021 of 2009\n\n                      ==================\n\n              Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The 1st petitioner is a trader in cements. He started his business<\/p>\n
in Door Nos.VII\/8J and 8K of Vengola Grama Panchayat. The premises<\/p>\n
of the business was taken on rent by the 1st petitioner from one Moosa<\/p>\n
as per rent deed dated 25.4.2008. He obtained Ext.P2 licence for the<\/p>\n
business from the Panchayat on 27.5.2008. He started the business by<\/p>\n
the end of May, 2008. The 1st petitioner wanted to engage permanent<\/p>\n
headload workers for doing the loading and unloading work in the<\/p>\n
newly started establishment. He chose petitioners 2 to 4. Petitioners 2<\/p>\n
to 4 filed applications dated 16.6.2008 before the 1st respondent for<\/p>\n
registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The<\/p>\n
said applications are Exts.P4(a) to P4(c). When there was delay in<\/p>\n
consideration of those applications, the petitioners approached this<\/p>\n
Court by filing W.P.(C).No.25707\/2008, in which, by Ext.P5 judgment<\/p>\n
dated 26.8.2008, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider<\/p>\n
and pass orders on the applications within one month from the date of<\/p>\n
receipt of a copy of that judgment. Immediately thereafter, on<\/p>\n
27.8.2008, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P6 order rejecting the<\/p>\n
applications on the ground that the 1st petitioner could not prove that<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 4 were employed by him, by producing appropriate<\/p>\n
w.p.c.10021\/09                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
documents and also that the headload works of the 1st petitioner’s<\/p>\n
establishment were being conducted by pool workers of pool No.91<\/p>\n
and 92. Against that order, the petitioners filed appeal before the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent, who rejected the same, by Ext.P7 order, on the ground<\/p>\n
that the chairperson of the local committee of the Kerala Headload<\/p>\n
Workers Welfare Fund Board has given evidence to the effect that the<\/p>\n
area in question is a scheme covered area and that in the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner’s establishment, workers of pool Nos.91 and 92 were doing<\/p>\n
loading and unloading work. The petitioners are challenging Exts.P6<\/p>\n
and P7 orders in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     According to the petitioners, petitioners 2 to 4 are actually<\/p>\n
working in the establishment of the 1st petitioner, which is evident from<\/p>\n
Exts.P8 register maintained by the 1st petitioner, Ext.P9 muster rolls<\/p>\n
and Ext.P10 wage slips for payment of wages to petitioners 2 to 4.<\/p>\n
The petitioners would, therefore, contend that             the finding of<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2 that the 1st petitioner could not prove that<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 4 were employed by the 1st petitioner is not true to<\/p>\n
facts and therefore, the finding in that regard is clearly perverse.<\/p>\n
      3.     The   learned    Government      Pleader     appearing    for<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2 supports Exts.P6 and P7 orders on the same<\/p>\n
reasons as contained therein. The counsel for the 3rd respondent also<\/p>\n
supports the orders on the ground that the work of the 1st petitioner’s<\/p>\n
w.p.c.10021\/09                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
establishment were being carried out by pool workers of pool Nos.91<\/p>\n
and 92 of the local committee and, therefore, they are entitled to<\/p>\n
continue to be employed by the 1st petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      5.     Rule 26A prescribes only the procedure for registration of<\/p>\n
headload workers. Rule 26A is contained in Chapter IV of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Headload Workers Rules, which is prescribed under Chapter IX of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Headload Workers Act. Chapter IX contains the provisions<\/p>\n
regarding     registration     of    headload     workers,     employers    and<\/p>\n
maintenance of records. Section 26 contains the provisions for<\/p>\n
employment of persons in a new establishment. The said section<\/p>\n
provides thus:\n<\/p>\n
             “26. Employment of persons in new establishment.- (1)
\n      Notwithstanding     anything    contained   in  this  Act,  when   a  new
\n      establishment or firm has started otherwise than by the change of
\n      ownership or name or by shifting of an establishment or firm from one
\n      place to another, the employer may employ on a regular basis any person
\n      of his choice for carrying out the loading and unloading work in his
\n      establishment or firm:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Provided    that any head load worker employed or engaged for
\n      loading or unloading work in or for an establishment or firm shall not be
\n      denied his employment in that establishment or firm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (2)    Every employer of new establishment or firm as mentioned
\n      in sub-section (1) shall furnish the details of head load workers employed
\n      by him within 30 days from the date of such employment to the authority
\n      or officer referred to in Section 25.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (3)     No head load worker employed in any establishment who
\n      has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
\n      employer or contractor shall be denied employment by that employer
\n      until the head load worker has been –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
w.p.c.10021\/09                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
             (a)    given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons
\n      for denial of employment and the period of notice has expired or the head
\n      load worker has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of
\n      the notice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (b)    paid at the time of denial of employment compensation
\n      which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed
\n      year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      It is not disputed before me that the 1st petitioner started the<\/p>\n
new establishment by the end of May, 2008. It is also not disputed<\/p>\n
before me that Exts.P4(a) to P4(c) applications for registration under<\/p>\n
Rule 26A were submitted by petitioners 2 to 4 on 16.6.2008 for<\/p>\n
registration as attached headload workers of the petitioner’s new<\/p>\n
establishment. Therefore, clearly Section 26A is attracted to the<\/p>\n
present case in so far as the 1st petitioner has started a new<\/p>\n
establishment and he has chosen petitioners 2 to 4 as headload<\/p>\n
workers to be employed by him on a regular basis. That being so,<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 4, whom the 1st petitioner has chosen as his headload<\/p>\n
workers on regular basis, are entitled to get registration under Rule<\/p>\n
26A. Under Section 25 of the Act, every headload worker shall register<\/p>\n
his name with such authority or officer in such manner as may be<\/p>\n
prescribed and shall also register his name as provided in the Scheme,<\/p>\n
on the commencement of the functional operation of that Scheme.<\/p>\n
Therefore, only registered workers can work as headload workers in a<\/p>\n
new establishment. Certainly a new worker would not have registration<\/p>\n
unless he applied for registration under Rule 26A. In this case,<\/p>\n
w.p.c.10021\/09                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 4 have filed applications as soon as the 1st petitioner<\/p>\n
started business and selected petitioners 2 to 4 as his regular headload<\/p>\n
workers. Even assuming that pool workers of pool Nos.91 and 92 have<\/p>\n
been engaged by the 1st petitioner, that can only be pending<\/p>\n
registration of his regular workers under Rule 26A. Simply because for<\/p>\n
some time the 1st petitioner had engaged pool workers of pool Nos.91<\/p>\n
and 92 (assuming that to be so), that cannot ipso facto prevent<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 4 from getting registration under Rule 26A as regular<\/p>\n
workers of the 1st petitioner. Therefore, I am satisfied that Exts.P6 and<\/p>\n
P7 orders denying registration to petitioners 2 to 4 under Rule 26A is<\/p>\n
clearly perverse and unsustainable. Accordingly, Exts.P6 and P7 orders<\/p>\n
are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to give registration to<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 4 as regular workers of the 1st petitioner as<\/p>\n
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date<\/p>\n
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      The writ petition is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
sdk+                                             S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE\n\n          \/\/\/True copy\/\/\/\n\n\n\n\n                               P.A. to Judge\n\nw.p.c.10021\/09    6\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 10021 of 2009(W) 1. ANOOP K.A., AGED 30 (THIRTY) YEARS, … Petitioner 2. ANEESH K.A., AGED 29 (TWENTY NINE)YEARS, 3. JISSAR M.M., AGED 21 (TWENTY ONE)YEARS, 4. RATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 26 (TWENTY […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-26T04:23:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-26T04:23:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1213,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-26T04:23:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-26T04:23:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-26T04:23:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009"},"wordCount":1213,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009","name":"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-26T04:23:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anoop-k-a-vs-the-asst-labour-officer-on-23-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anoop K.A. vs The Asst. Labour Officer on 23 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156508\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}