IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 700 of 2008(G) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- LINTO P.L., PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, NAZRETH ANGADI, NELLIKUNNU, THRISSUR-5. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER (FIRST CIRCLE), CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 700 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM NO.9 SUBMITTED ON 21.3.07 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23/3/2007 ISSUED BY M/S. JALEEL & CO. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23.3.07 ISSUED BY M.K. ANTONY. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/7/07 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AND THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED EXPLAINING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/12/07 PASSED BY R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.700 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules 1981 before the 2nd respondent against Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent, whereby the petitioner's application for registration under Rule 26A has been rejected. There was a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner explained the delay by stating that Ext.P4 order received by him had been misplaced. However, the 2nd respondent was not satisfied with the explanation for the delay and by Ext.P6 order rejected the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal. The same is under challenge before me. 2. I am of opinion that in cases relating to appeals under the Head Load Workers Act and Rules it is not necessary to scrutinise petitions to condone the delay that strictly. Here the delay is only of 61 days and the petitioner has given some explanation, which cannot be stated to be totally unsustainable. W.P.(c) No.700/08 2 As such, I am of opinion that the 2nd respondent ought to have accepted the explanation for the delay and condoned the delay. 3. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 appeal on merits condoning the delay in filing the same. The appeal shall be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.700/08 3