Kerala High Court
Sureshkumar R vs The District Labour Officer on 19 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KER 125
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.1151 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2019 IN WP(C) NO.934/2019(N) OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONER:
1 SURESHKUMAR R., AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.RAJAYYEN, THIRUVATHIRA BHAVAN,
MEKKATHIL PARAVAZHATHI VEEDU, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 ALOSIUS K.,
JOSE BHAVAN, PARAVAZHINJI, NOCHIYOOR,
CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 MANU S.S.,
VADAKKEPLAVILA MOOLA, MEKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,
NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 JISHNU S.S.,
PLAVILA VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5 SANAL S.,
SANKARAMURI VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
6 LAWRENCE K.,
KARAVAKUZHI IDATHACHANVILA VEEDU, KEEZHKOLLA, CHENKAL
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
7 BAIJU G.L.,
MEKKATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAVAKUZHI, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 2
8 RAJESH S.,
S.V. NIVAS, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
9 SANTHOSH T.S.,
PALAVILA VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
10 BINU KUMAR K.,
VALIYAVILAKAM, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
11 SANTHOSH G.V.,
VALIYAKUZHI MANVEEDU, KEEZHKOLLA, AMARAVILA P.O.
12 JOSE L.,
MUTTACAUDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
13 NIBU R.,
MUTTACAUDU PUTHEN VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
14 PRATHEESH KUMAR,
THETTIKUZHI, MANNADI, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
15 BIJU KUMAR S.,
OOTTUKUZHI, KEEZHKOLLA, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
16 ROJIN T.R.,
OOTTUKUZHI, KEEZHKOLLA, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
17 MAHESH S.R.,
KOTTARATHUVILA VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
18 SAJEESH G.,
PULINGAMUTTATHU VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
19 ANNESHKUMAR,
CHERUPULLAVILA VEEDU, KEEZHKOLLA, AMARAVILA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 3
20 BIJIN S.,
THEKKETHINAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR,
CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
21 SHIJU S.S.,
THALAVILAKATHU THEKKEPUTHEN VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR,
CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
22 PRADEEP S.,
PLAVILAMOOL, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
23 ANEESH A.,
VARAVACHI, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
24 JINU V.S.,
PLAVILAMOOLA, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
25 SUNIL RAJ R.,
SUNIL BHAVAN, PARAVAZHINJI, NOCHIYOOR,
CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
26 SANAL RAJ R.,
PURATHAMARATHU VEEDU, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
27 SAJI A.,
S.S. BHAVAN, KARAVAKUZHI, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN
SMT.T.N.SREEKALA
SRI.PAUL C THOMAS
SRI.PAUL C THOMAS
A.T.JOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM-695582.
Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 4
3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PARASSALA, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM-695132.
4 APPUKUTTAN, SECRETARY,
HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU),
CHENKAL PANCHAYATH, CHENKAL,
RESIDING AT KUNJAVILA VEEDU, VATTAVILA P.O.,
CHENKAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM-695132.
5 SELVARAJ K.,
PALIVALA VEEDU, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695132.
R1-3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.RENIL ANTO
R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2021,
THE COURT ON 19-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 5
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, V.G.ARUN & M.R.ANITHA, JJJ.
-----------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
A Division Bench of this Court referred a question of law for consideration by a Full Bench, doubting the declaration of a Division Bench in Jnana Prakasam v. Natarajan, [2002 (1) KLT 39], which reversed the judgment of a Single Judge in Arogyaswamy v. District Labour Officer [2000 (3) KLT 676]. The referring Bench agreed with the proposition in Arogyaswamy [supra] that existing cardholders under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 [for brevity, 'the Rules of 1981'] would not have a right of appeal under Rule 26C of the Rules of 1981 against a fresh registration granted under Rule 26A of the Rules of 1981. According to the referring Bench, the existing cardholders would have to approach the Registering Authority under sub-rule (4) of Rule 26A of the Rules of 1981.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ajith Prakash argued for the position that the appeal, which led to the impugned order, is not Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 6 maintainable and the opinion of the referring Bench has to be upheld. On facts it is submitted that respondents 4 & 5 representing the existing Rule 26A cardholders, opposed the registration granted to the 27 appellants only by reason of inter-union rivalry. The appellants have sought and were registered in the area Nochiyoor under specific employers, details of whom have been extracted in the identity cards issued as seen from Ext.P1. The party respondents represent the existing cardholders in a totally different area as is seen from Ext.P4. The remedy if at all available to the existing registered workers against a new registration is under Rule 26A(4) of the Rules of 1981. There could not have been an appeal filed under Rule 26C. Registration under Rule 26A is of a headload worker, the definition of which figures under Section 2(m) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978.
3. Reliance is placed on Rajeev v. District Labour Officer [2010 (4) KLT 783] to contend that for seeking registration under Rule 26A, there is no requirement that an applicant should be an existing headload worker. If it were otherwise, none who chooses such work as his avocation for the first time, would be entitled to get registration. The scheme of the enactment is that a headload worker in a non-Scheme area need not necessarily take registration under Rule 26A. But when a Scheme is introduced in the area, only existing Rule 26A workers would be entitled to apply Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 7 for registration under the Scheme for issuance of Rule 6A cards under the Kerala Headload Workers [Regulation of Employment and Welfare] Scheme, 1983 ['Scheme of 1983' for brevity]. When a Scheme is implemented, even an attached worker, who works under a particular employer, would have to take registration under Rule 26A.
4. At the time of registration the only persons, who are to be issued with notice, are the employee, the employer or employers specified and the Chairman of the Welfare Board Local Committee. The Local Committee, only if the area is Scheme covered. The learned Counsel would clearly draw a distinction between the Scheme covered areas and non-Scheme areas. Insofar as the unattached workers, registered under Rule 26A in Scheme covered areas, who are also assigned to specific Pools, they would be entitled to file an appeal under Rule 26C against an order granting a fresh registration under Rule 26A. This is so since the Local Committee represents such Pool members before the Registering Authority. In the case of non-Scheme areas, if the registered workers are allowed to object to each and every fresh registration, that would lead to infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on a chosen avocation.
5. Sri.Thomas Abraham argued for the party respondents. It is submitted that the legislative Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 8 Scheme is as dilated upon in Jnana Prakasam. According to the learned Counsel, the registered workers have a vested right and any new registration granted in their area would lead to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that the 'person aggrieved', as spoken of in Rule 26C cannot be restricted to those persons specified in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26A. It is pointed out that such a narrow interpretation would affect the valuable rights of the existing registered workers and they would be denied of an opportunity to challenge the new registration granted, if the grant is indiscriminate and arbitrary. The appeal filed is perfectly maintainable and the appellate order cancelling the registration has to be upheld, is the contention.
6. Sri.Renil Anto Kandamkulathy argues for the State and supports the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Rules.
7. Before we look into the question referred, we have to notice that, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is a distinction to be kept in mind insofar as Scheme covered areas and non-Scheme areas. At the outset we have to observe that if we find the appeal, which led to the impugned order, to be maintainable, the consideration in the writ appeal would have to be made by the Division Bench, to which we will transmit the files after answering the Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 9 question of law. However, if the appeal is found to be not maintainable; the parties too are agreeable that the writ appeal would have to be allowed and the parties left to other remedies.
8. We would first look at the conflicting opinions of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. In this context we have to notice that we have called for the records and perused the Judges Papers to find that Arogyaswamy and Jnana Prakasam were in a Scheme covered area. Even then we look at the principle as stated in the decisions. We extract here under paragraph 13 of Arogyaswamy as follows:
"13. From the scheme of the Rules, it is evident that the right of the workers to get the registration is a statutory right. A registration confers numerous benefits to an employee. A registration by itself does not directly impose any financial or other liability on the employer/contractor. The prime requirement for registration is that he should be a head-load worker. In fact the area were one works also has not been given any importance, the single relevant requirement is that he should be engaged in the headload work. It is for ascertaining the above, that views of employer are solicited. On conferment of the cards, as it does not affect third persons or fellow employees, they cannot at all be considered as aggrieved, and consequently they cannot maintain an appeal against the order. It cannot come with grace from the mouth of any workman that another workman cannot be issued a card. A monopoly is never Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 10 envisaged, but a liberal approach alone is justified. I have to read down R. 26C to this extent that the word aggrieved only refers to the employer, contractor, or the applicant and none else. Any other interpretation may not be in consonance with the underlying objective of the enactment. For this reason also, I hold that the appeal was not entertainable, and also incompetent."
9. We also extract paragraph 9 of Jnana Prakasam which is as follows:
"9. The decision in this Appeal will rest upon the interpretation given to the words "any person aggrieved" in R. 26C(1). Going by the literal meaning, any person who considers himself aggrieved will be able to file an appeal. With regard to the question whether the existing workmen can be said to be persons aggrieved by the grant of registration to fresh workmen in an area, the learned Single Judge was of the view that they cannot be said to be persons aggrieved. The words "persons aggrieved"
have been read down only to include persons who have a right of hearing at the time of registration of the workmen. Such persons are the applicants and the employers. In relation to registration of attached workmen who are employed in a particular shop, third parties cannot have any right of hearing or any right of appeal. In the case of registration of workmen in a particular area, at the first instance, "aggrieved persons" will include only the applicants and the contractors. But when it comes to the case of application by new workmen in an area where there are Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 11 already a set of workmen, the interpretation given by the learned single Judge will not be correct. If in an area fresh workmen also enter, that will result in sharing the cake by more mouths resulting in depletion of the share of existing workmen. This will affect the livelihood of the existing workmen which is considered as a concomitant of the right of life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India."
While Arogyaswamy read down Rule 26C finding that it was never the intention of the legislature to create a monopoly for workers already registered under Rule 26A; Jnana Prakasam reversed the said finding on the ground that a new registration would affect the livelihood of the existing worker impinging the right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
10. Before we rule finally on the question referred, we look at the various decisions of this Court placed before us. Rajeev vs. District Labour Officer 2010 (4) KLT 783 arose from a Scheme covered area. Registration was sought under Rule 26A under an employer, who sought to employ the workers as permanent attached headload workers. The 6th respondent in the above case was a Pool leader under the Local Committee. The contention of the petitioners was that they have a fundamental right to do headload work with the employer under whom the workers seeking registration were proposing to be attached workers. The denial of Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 12 registration was also on account of the applicants and the employer having not established that the applicants were existing headload workers. The existing registered workers from the Pool also contended that the employer cannot employ any others and cannot seek registration of new employees under Rule 26A. The learned Single Judge after reading the Act, the Rules and the Scheme categorically found that no headload worker can work in a Scheme covered area without a registration under Rule 26A and hence there is no logic in insisting that a fresh applicant should be an existing headload worker. Rule 26A was read down enabling even a fresh applicant, who decides to choose the particular avocation for the first time, to seek registration under Rule 26A. Otherwise, it would be a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India was the finding. It was also found that "just like an attached worker having an employer, a person who wants to engage himself in the profession as an unattached headload worker has a fundamental right..." to apply for registration as a Pool worker whenever vacancies are notified. Insofar as an attached worker in a Scheme covered area, it was found that there could be no denial of registration on the ground that the worker sought to be employed has no prior experience in headload work, as long as he had a good physique and an employer willing to employ him permanently. Reliance was also placed on Raghavan v.
Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 13Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732 (FB)], a Full bench decision which allowed employers in Scheme covered areas to have attached workers for carrying out their loading and unloading work, with only the requirement that they should be registered under Rule 26A and the employer should maintain proper registers and records as contemplated in the Act and the Rules. It would also follow from the above decision that a person is enabled to even apply for registration as an attached worker (ie: as a member of the Pool) when there is a vacancy notified; but however only if he has a prior registration under Rule 26A.
11. Majeed v. District Labour Officer [2015 (1) KLT 750] was a decision by one of us [KVC(J)] sitting single. There again, it was a Scheme covered area and the Pool leader was aggrieved with registration of the 3rd respondent under Rule 26A as an attached headload worker of the additional 4th respondent. The registration was found to be perfectly in order. Gangadharan v. Abdul Nassir [2016 (4) KLT 592] too arose in a Scheme covered area in which registration of attached workers was sought under a particular employer. The Division Bench found that while Rule 26A(2) does not envisage issuance of notice to the existing registered unattached workers, they are all the same entitled to file appeal under Rule 26C. Looking at Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it was held that though an existing worker gets a right to Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 14 eke out his livelihood in the Scheme covered area, the fortuitous circumstance of having obtained such registration cannot deny the very same right to live, to the others, who subsequently received registration under Rule 26A.
12. Shereef v. Muhammed Sheffeek [2017 (3) KLT 106] again related to a scheme covered area wherein a Division Bench held that the registration under Section 26A granted to attached workers can be challenged in an appeal under Section 26C by the unattached workers and even the Secretary of a Union of workers would have locus standi so to do. On a reading of the aforesaid precedents we cannot but agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that there should be a distinction drawn insofar as a Scheme covered area and non-Scheme area.
13. A Division Bench [KVC&VGA,JJ] in A and J Granites v. Station House Officer [2019(3) KLT 738] looking at the Act, Rules and Scheme held so in paragraph 4.
"4. The right to work as headload workers as crystallised by R.26A cards arises by reason of the headload Workers Act. However, the mere fact the R.26A cards have been issued would not enable the cardholders to seek loading and unloading work in the area as a matter of right. Such a right arises only when the scheme under the headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme is extended to the area and a pool is constituted, wherein the members are issued with R.26A cards. Admittedly, there Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 15 is no scheme implemented in the area."
14. We also refer to Nujumudeen M. v. City Police Commissioner, Kollam & Others [2011 (3) KHC 96] wherein a Division Bench held that an employer is free to employ any worker as headload worker in an area where the scheme has not been made applicable and no registered or unregistered worker can insist that he should be given the work in that area.
15. What we see from the provisions, as interpreted in the cited decisions, is that where no scheme is implemented in an area, then there is no specific requirement for getting a registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. Any person could work as a headload worker in the area and the registration under Rule 26A would be optional. The mere fact of registration under Rule 26A in an area where there is no scheme implemented or Pool constituted, would not confer any right on the registered worker to claim work under any employer within that area. The employer would have his option to either employ a worker having registration or an unregistered person; of the employer's choice.
16. When a Scheme is implemented to that area then there should be a registration under the Scheme for a worker to be admitted to the benefits of the Scheme by enrolling him as a member of the Pool constituted. That is facilitated by issuance of a Rule Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 16 6A Identity Card under the Scheme of 1983. But to obtain a Rule 6A Card a headload worker should have a prior registration under Rule 26A. When such a Scheme is implemented it is also incumbent for attached workers to have a registration under Rule 26A as has been held by a Full Bench in Raghavan.
17. The upshot of the above discussion would be that in a non-Scheme area any person could work as a headload worker and employment would be at the option of the employer. There is no right conferred on an employee having registration under Rule 26A to claim headload work in such areas. When a scheme is implemented and headload workers with Rule 26A Cards are issued with Rule 6A Cards under the scheme then they become the unattached workers of the area, who carry on regular or incidental loading and unloading work in that area. This right also does not extend to the work in establishments/employers who have attached workers having registration under Rule 26A. Hence it cannot be said that there is any vested right on the employees having Identity Cards either under the Rule or under the Scheme to claim work of loading and unloading.
18. The issue referred has to be answered keeping in mind the distinction emphasized, as also the consequences and entitlements which follow a registration, under the Rules alone and one also under the Scheme. Jnana Prakasam arose from a Scheme covered Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 17 area as did every other decision cited by us except Nujumudeen. The consistent finding of the various Benches of this Court was that in a Scheme covered area an unattached worker gets a right to challenge the registration granted to attached workers under Rule 26A. This is because the scheme extended to the area and Pool/s constituted with Rule 6A Card holders, create a manner of right insofar as the loading and unloading work carried out in that area. This right is circumscribed only by the entitlement of employers/ establishments in the area to have permanent loading and unloading workers; who have registration under Rule 26A, as has been held in Raghavan. The Full Bench in Raghavan has also observed that such regular workers permanently attached could also be engaged in other work which would not take the permanent worker out of the definition of headload worker. This cannot however lead to establishments/employers getting registration under Rule 26A for employees who are in their permanent roll assigned with other specific duties. It cannot also result in the employer/establishment in an area getting registration of employees under Rule 26A and engaging others of their choice. These are issues which only an unattached worker or his Union would be able to point out before the appellate authority in a properly instituted appeal. In non-Scheme areas the registration under Rule 26A does not create any right and in such circumstances in such areas there is no right conferred Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 18 on the registered headload worker to challenge a fresh registration granted to another. This does not deviate from the fact that even in a Scheme covered area at the time of seeking registration, the unattached workers already issued with Rule 6A Cards need not be participated in the enquiry contemplated under Rule 26A(2).
19. The learned Counsel for the respondent had a contention that the words 'aggrieved person' under Section 26C of the Rules; with reference to an appeal has to be given a wider meaning, including persons over and above those specified under sub-rule (2) of Rule 26A. Rule 26A speaks of registration of a headload worker and it is not necessary that the person seeking registration should be an existing headload worker. As has been held in Rajeev, even a fresh entrant who has a good physic and has a willing employer/employers can seek such a registration. Rule 26A has two limbs, the first mandating notice to the employers or contractors from whom the headload worker claims work applicable in non-Scheme areas, while the second limb is concerned with areas where the Scheme of 1983 is in operation which mandates notice also to the Chairman of the Welfare Board Local Committee.
20. Rule 26C provides for an appeal from orders of the Registering Authority under sub-rule (3) or (4). As we found, under sub-rule (3) registration can be granted in a Scheme covered area, only after notice to Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 19 the employer, contractor and the Welfare Board Local Committee. With respect to a non-scheme area the notice need be only to the employer or contractor. Only those participated in the enquiry for the purpose of registration, as contemplated under Rule 26A can be considered to be 'aggrieved' by the registration. This does not render a headload worker registered under Rule 26A, in a non-Scheme area from agitating a legitimate objection against a fresh registration. He could approach the Registering Authority under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 26A alleging fraud or a mistake. An order passed under sub-rule (4) again is appealable under Rule 26C.
21. On the above reasoning we find that Jnana Prakasam is correctly decided but applies only to Scheme covered areas. We have to respectfully follow the principles stated in Paragraph 5 of Jnana Prakasam extracted herein above, which applies to Scheme covered areas. As far as the principles propounded by the learned Single Judge in Arogyaswamy, we find application in non-Scheme areas. In the circumstances, we put the law in the correct perspective insofar as the remedy of appeal under Rule 26C and the entitlement to maintain an appeal as an 'aggrieved person' in the following manner:
1.In a non-Scheme area an existing headload worker registered under Rule 26A has no right to be participated in an enquiry contemplated under Rule Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 20 26A for registration and also has no right to appeal under Rule 26C against the grant of a fresh registration.
2.In a non-Scheme area the right of an existing headload worker registered under Rule 26A, to object to a fresh registration is by approaching the Registering Authority under sub-rule (4) of Rule 26A from which order there could be an appeal maintained under Rule 26C.
3.In the case of Scheme covered areas no unattached worker who has a registration under Rule 6A of the Scheme of 1983 has the right to be participated in an enquiry, contemplated under Rule 26A for registration of attached workers. They would however be represented by the Local Committee before the Registering Authority.
4.In a Scheme covered area when a fresh registration is granted under rule 26A to attached workers then an unattached worker or his Union or even the Pool leader could file an appeal under Rule 26C against the fresh registration.
On the above reasoning, we find the appeal filed by the respondents against fresh registration under Rule 26A, to be not maintainable, since the area is a non-Scheme area. We allow the writ appeal and the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order without any opinion expressed on the reasoning in the order. We however reserve the right of the party respondents, the Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2019 21 existing registered workers under Rule 26A to approach the Registering Authority under Rule 26A(4). Ordered accordingly leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge.
Sd/-
V.G. ARUN, Judge.
Sd/-
M.R. ANITHA, Judge.
sp/jma //True Copy// P.A. To Judge