IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16959 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. R.SURESH,S/O.RAMAN,AGED 54 YEARS, MURIKANTHARA PARAMBIL,8/270A, KOOVAPADAM,KOCHI-2. 2. K.B.BINOY,S/O.BALAN,AGED 30 YEARS, KOTTAPURATH THUNDI,VYTTILA,KOCHI-19. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, COCHIN PORT TRUST AREA COMMITTEE, KOCHI-682003,REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE CONVENOR, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, COCHIN PORT TRUST AREA COMMITTEE, KOCHIN-682 003. 4. THE ASPINWAL COMPANY LTD., REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, WILLINGTON ISLAND,KOCHI. R2 & R3 BY RENIL ANTO KANDANKULATHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16959 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 2. In the nature of the direction, which is proposed to be issued in this case, it is not necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent. 3. The petitioners are headload workers registered under the provisions of para 6A of the scheme framed under the Kerala Headload Workers' Act. They claim that they were under the employment of the 4th respondent and registered with the 2nd respondent. The functions of the committee included pooling of the headload workers, who are not employed under any employer or contractor, to arrange and regulate employment to such headload workers as also payment of wages. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to get employment under the 4th respondent. Therefore, the petitioners W.P.(C).No.16959 of 2009 :: 2 :: have moved the 2nd respondent, who is competent to take action. Ext.P3 reminder is also sent. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to look into Ext.P2, after notice to the 4th respondent as also the petitioners, and appropriate decision may be taken in the matter of pooling, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge