Would Lead To Exclusion Of New Entrants To Work: Kerala High Court Permits Labour Companies To Register Own Employees As Headload Workers

The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that businesses are not obligated to recruit existing registered headload workers and that they are at liberty to register their own employees as headload workers as long as such employees are willing and able to do the work. 

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the order declaring that a business is free to register its own workers as headload workers since there is no legal requirement mandating otherwise. 

Referring to its earlier judgments on similar matters such as Gangadharan v. Abdul Nasir, and  Muhammed Kunju & Ors v. District Labour Officer & Ors, the Court remarked:

"This would also lead to an anomalous situation, where, no new persons could ever be registered as a headload worker in a scheme covered area. The Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 does not contemplate such an interpretation, and if adopted, it would render the Act redundant and unworkable. If such an interpretation is adopted, it will create a situation where the existing registered headload workers alone would be able to continue the work of loading and unloading, to the exclusion of all those new entrants to work."

The order came in a petition filed by an employer and two of his employees who worked as headload workers at his establishment.

Appearing through Advocate T.R Rajan, they challenged the rejection of their applications to be registered as headload workers and sought directions to ensure their registration and issue the requisite identity cards to them.

Objecting to the same, the respondents represented by Government Pleader Sabeena P Ismail and Advocate Siju Kamalasanan, argued that if the employer wanted to engage headload workers, he could do so from the already registered workers available in the area.

They further contended that there was no irregularity or illegality in the orders rejecting the application since the impugned employees were not employed for headload works in the establishment of the first petitioner and hence they will not come within the purview of Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978.

However, the Court rejected the arguments posed by the respondents stating that it defies logic and is irrational. 

Reliance was also placed on the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, where it was noted that the only requirement was that the workers should have the ability and inclination to carry out such work.

"While considering an application for registration as a headload worker under Rule 26A of the Rules, the registering officers' lookout is not whether the applicant was a headload worker or not, prior to such registration. The said provision has already been read down to mean that the lookout for the registering officer must be only as to whether the applicant has the physique to be employed as a headload worker and also as to whether the employer is prepared to engage the applicant as headload worker."

The Bench also ruled that an inclination or willingness to do headload work along with the consent of the employer to employ the person as a headload worker would satisfy the requirements of the Act and Scheme to obtain registration as a headload worker.

It was further found that the assertions of the employer and the employees that they were engaged as headload workers, in the absence of contrary evidence, were sufficient to allow the applications for registration.

As such, the orders rejecting the applications were set aside and the concerned authorities were directed to register the employees as headload workers in a time-bound manner.

Case Title: Manzoor E v. District Labour Officer

Click Here To Read The Order