IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15186 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.O.DEVASSY KUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, NJALIYAN HOUSE, NEELISWARAM P.O., KOTTAMAM, KALADY. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 2. THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER, ANGAMALY. 3. THE SECRETARY, I.N.T.U.C., KALAMPATTUPURAM, KOTTAMAM, KALADY. 4. THE SECRETARY, C.I.T.U., KALAMPATTUPURAM, KOTTAMAM, KALADY. ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY FOR R4 GP SRI.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15186 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.10371/08 EXT.P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).15186/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition was heard on 12.6.2009 and an order was dictated in the open Court, setting aside Ext.P2 on the ground that the authority had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in settling a dispute which could only be done by a conciliation officer under the Headload Workers Act. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent then made a motion and on consent of parties, matter has been taken up again and heard afresh. 2. Petitioner is conducting the business of tiles and marbles at Kalady. He has got a godown at Kalmpattupuram for stocking tiles, marbles and granites. Dispute arose between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 in the matter of loading and unloading of articles. Petitioner had moved this Court seeking a direction to the police officials to render him protection and the same was granted W.P.(C).15186/2009 2 under Ext.P1, without prejudice to the right of the Union to move for settlement of their disputes in terms of the provisions of the Headload Workers Act. 4th respondent submitted an application before the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer, and a conciliation was held among the parties. Ultimately a meeting was called by the 1st respondent, District Labour Officer, and since a resolution of the dispute did not come up, he passed Ext.P2 purporting to settle the dispute. This has been challenged in the writ petition essentially on the ground that Deputy Labour Officer is notified as a conciliation Officer in terms of Section 3 of the Act and that the District Labour Officer has been notified as an appellate authority. It was further contended that therefore, the District Labour Officer who could function as the appellate Authority ought not to have settled the dispute as an original authority. 3. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent draws W.P.(C).15186/2009 3 my attention to SRO 84 issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act. Serial No.18 of the notification makes it clear that the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam and the Deputy Labour Officer attached to the office of the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam, is notified as a conciliation Officer for the revenue district of Ernakulam. SRO 85 makes it clear that the RJC, Ernakulam, is authorized to discharge the functions of the appellate authority under the Act in relation to the Revenue Districts of Kottayam, Idukki, Ernakulam, Thrissur and Palakkad. 4. Section 3 of the Act only interdicts the notification of an Officer lower that an Assistant Labour Officer as a conciliation Officer. It does not interdict the notification of an Officer in the rank of a District Labour Officer as a conciliation Officer. That is what has been done under SRO 84. If this be so, Ext.P2 cannot be considered as one without W.P.(C).15186/2009 4 jurisdiction. Remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal before the appellate authority in relation to the District Labour Officer. If he does so within two weeks from today, appellate authority shall proceed to dispose of the same within one month thereafter, after notice to all the affected parties. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs