IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 20310 of 2009(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VELU,S/O.PAPPU,AGED 71 YEARS,CHARUVILA VEEDU,VENTURE.P.O,KAZHUTHURUTHY,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,KOLLAM DIST, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. * ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED 3. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, LOCAL COMMITTEE, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT CHAIRMAN. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 25/05/2010 IN I.A. 10590/2009. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE FOR ADDL.R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20310 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated 1st October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Secretary of United Trade Union Congress (B). The workers belonging to the said union submitted an application before the second respondent for registration of their names under the Headload Workers' Act and the Rule thereunder. As per Ext.P1, the second respondent registered 60 members of the union and allotted certain areas as their areas of work. The workers who got registration as per Ext.P1 got grievance with respect to the allotment of the area of work and accordingly they preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the first respondent under Rule 26C of the Headload Workers Rules. On being aggrieved by the inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of the said appeal the petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.17582 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment directing the first respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the said appeal. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order has been passed. As per Ext.P5, the first respondent herein held that Ext.P3 appeal could not be construed as an appeal preferred under Rule 26C of the Headload Workers Rules and, in fact, the grievances raised thereunder can only be treated as a dispute falling under Section 2(h) of the Headload Workers WP(C).No.20310/2009 2 Act. Based on such conclusion they were directed to approach the concerned Labour Officer. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5 order and for a direction to hear and pass orders on Ext.P5 appeal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel appearing for additional respondent No.3 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the additional third respondent submitted with special reference to ground No.9 in Ext.P3 that it would suggest that the petitioner should have preferred an appeal under Rule 25A of the Rules before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner. In other words, in the light of the provisions under Rule 25A and with reference to Ext.P1 order it is contended that an appeal would lie only under Rule 25A. Indisputably, Ext.P1 order can be construed only as an order passed under Sub. Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act. Evidently, the members who got registration raised grievances with respect to the allotment of area of work. The said fact is evident from ground Nos. 5, 8 and 9 of Ext.P3 appeal. After perusing Ext.P3 appeal, I am inclined to accept the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned standing counsel appearing for the additional third WP(C).No.20310/2009 3 respondent. In the context of the said contention, it is relevant to refer to Rule 25A of the Rules. It reads thus: “25A. Appeal:- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Conciliation Officer under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act may file an appeal against such decision to the appellate authority within 60 days of receipt of the decision of the Conciliation Officer. The appeal shall be accompanied with a copy of the decision of the Conciliation Officer.” Having regard to the facts of this case and considering the above rule I am also of the considered view that if the persons who got registration under Ext.P1 got grievances with respect to the said order that was passed under sub-section (4) of section 21, their remedy is to file an appeal under Rule 25A of the Rules. Evidently, the petitioner has been pursuing the appeal before a wrong forum. Considering all these aspects, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the allotment of area as per Ext.P1, it will be open to him or the members of the union who got registration as per Ext.P1 to prefer an appeal against Ext.P1 before the concerned Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, in terms of Rule 25A of the Rules. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing this appeal before a wrong forum and also taking note of Ext.P4 judgment, it is further ordered that in case the petitioner or persons who WP(C).No.20310/2009 4 got registration under Ext.P1 preferred an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said authority shall treat it as an appeal preferred within the time limit and shall proceed to consider the same on merits with notice to the concerned parties, in accordance with law. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy// P.S. to Judge