AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J.
We are considering these Appeals together since the constitutive issues projected are analogous, if not similar; and the parties are substantially the same.
The controversy revolves on the question whether the alleged permanent employees of an establishment by name ‘T.P.Tiles Centre’, Wayanad, are entitled to be registered under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (‘Act’, for short).
The materials on record reveal that the alleged permanent employees of the establishment applied for registration, which was rejected by the Assistant Labour Officer, merely saying that if it is allowed, the other workers in the Pool maintained under the ‘Act’ would suffer; and this has been confirmed by the Statutory Appellate Authority, namely, the District Labour Officer, Wayanad.
The establishment, thereupon, filed W.P(C)No.25860/2021, assailing the afore two orders, producing them as Exts.P21 and P24 respectively; which has now been allowed by the learned Single Judge, quashing the said orders.
While so, the workers in the Pool maintained statutorily under the provisions of the ‘Act’, filed WP(C)No.8909/2022, seeking that the Assistant Labour Officer, Kalpetta (who is the competent Authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960), be directed to call for the records from the establishment, to verify whether their claim of being permanent workers is true or otherwise. This Writ Petition has, however, been dismissed through the impugned judgment, for the singular reason that the aforementioned Writ Petition has been allowed.
The Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (‘Board’) has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.25860 of 2021 through W.A.No.796/2022; while, the petitioners in W.P(C)Nos.8909/2022 – being the workers in the Pool maintained under the provisions of the ‘Act’ - have filed W.A.Nos.808/2022 against the judgment therein, as also W.A.No.797 of 2022, assailing the judgment in W.P(C)No.25860/2021.
Sri.Ranjith Thampan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Krishnakumar -appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.808/2022 and 797/2022, argued that even assuming that the learned Single Judge had the competence to set aside the orders impugned before him, he could not have directed the registration of the alleged permanent employees of the establishment without a proper enquiry. He pointed out that, as per the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge, after having quashed the orders of the Authorities, did not pass further consequential directions, but has recorded that W.P(C)No.25860/2021 is allowed, which can be interpreted to mean that the other reliefs therein, namely, relating to the registration of the permanent workers, have been affirmatively allowed. He then pointed out that the only relief sought for in W.P(C)No.8909/2022 was to direct an enquiry by the competent Authority, but that this has also been unfairly rejected. He prayed that these Appeals be, therefore, allowed.
Sri.Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.796/2022, argued that the learned Single Judge has literally truncated his client’s rights under the ‘Act’ to conduct an enquiry to decide whether the alleged permanent employees of the establishment ought to be given registration. He added that, even if Exts.P21 and P24 orders in W.P(C)No.25860/2021 could have been quashed, his client ought to have been given the liberty of causing proper enquiry by calling for records and all other materials, before they could have been directed to offer registration to the alleged permanent employees of the establishment. He prayed that W.A.No.796/2022 be, therefore, allowed.
As ineluctable from the afore, the dispute in this case between the parties is in a very small realm.
There are two sets of employees, one being the alleged permanent employees of the establishment and the other who are part of the Pool, maintained under the Statutory Scheme as per the ‘Act’.
The sole germane question is whether the alleged permanent employees of the establishment ought to be given registration.
Through the orders impugned in W.P(C)No.25860/2021 - namely Exts.P21 and P22 therein - the Assistant Labour Officer, Kalpetta, and the Appellate Authority, namely the District Labour Officer, Wayanad, rejected the applications of the alleged permanent employees of the establishment, saying that, if they are to be given registration, then the ‘Pool workers’ would suffer.
It is needless to say that such a reason could never have been cited by the competent Authorities while considering the statutory application for registration, and it does not require us to expatiate that such observations are wholly untenable and without any forensic basis. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, without error in having quashed the said orders.
As far as the next limb of the question - namely, whether the registration of the alleged permanent employees of the establishment could have been ordered by this Court directly, without allowing the ‘Board’ to conduct an enquiry as per the Statutory Scheme -our answer to this is to the negative, and are certainly of the view that this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot take upon it the wisdom of deciding factual matters at the first instance, to conclude whether the applications for registrations are allowable or otherwise. The ‘Act’ provides for a mechanism and method, under which applications are to be considered, leading them to be rejected or allowed; and we cannot allow the same to be bypassed, even through judicial orders.
Coming to the plea in W.P(C)No. 8909/2022, the ‘Pool workers’ seek that the Assistant Labour Officer, Kalpetta, be directed to call for certain documents from the establishment. In our view, such a direction could not have been issued; and to that extent, the learned Single Judge is without error. However, we cannot limit the powers of the ‘Board’ as are available to them under the ‘Act’, to cause the enquiry, including the summoning of documents and witnesses as is permitted.
In summation:
W.A.Nos.796/2022 and 797/2022 are allowed in part, vacating the impugned judgment to the extent to which it orders the grant of registration by the Assistant Labour Officer to the alleged permanent employees of the establishment; with a consequential direction to the Assistant Labour Officer, to reconsider the application for registration by the said workers, after affording necessary opportunities to all the appellants in these cases; thus culminating in an appropriate order as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While doing so, the Assistant Labour Officer will act dispassionately and without being guided by any observations or conclusions in Exts.P21 and P24, which stands quashed.
W.A.No.808/2022 is dismissed; however, clarifying that the ‘Board’ will have full competence as per the ‘Act’ to conduct any enquiry, in the manner as postulated therein, in terms of direction (a) above.