IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17318 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PRESIDENT, ANGAMALY MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, ANGAMALY-683 572. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PRESIDENT, ANGAMALY MEGHALA HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (I.N.T.U.C) ANGAMALY. P.O. 2. PRESIDENT, ANGADIKKADAVU MEGHALA HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (I.N.T.U.C), ANGAMALY P.O. 3. SECRETARY, ANGAMALY HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (C.I.T.U), ANGAMALY P.O. 4. SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (C.I.T.U), ANGADIKKADAVU UNIT, ANGAMALY P.O. 5. ANGAMALY TOWN HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, ANGAMALY P.O. 6. CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ANGAMALY SUB COMMITTEE, ANGAMALY P.O. 7. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 8. REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. R6 BY ADV. SRI. KOSHY GEORGE, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17318 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the President of the Angamaly Merchants Association. There are about 850 shops/commercial establishments functioning in and around Angamaly Town. According to the petitioner, there is acute shortage of headload workers in the area and the available workers are grossly insufficient to meet the requirements of the merchants and the general public. There are only 20 workers in Pool No.14 and 16 workers in Pool No.15 under the Headload Workers Welfare Board, Angamaly Sub Committee. As per Ext.P2 memorandum of settlement dated 14.5.2008, it was agreed that a decision in the matter would be taken by the 6th respondent within a period of two months. However, no decision has been taken thereon till date. 2. In the above circumstances, as per Ext.P5 order, the 7th respondent has directed an increase in the wages of the workers by 14%. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner has preferred an appeal which is pending as Ext.P6 along with a stay petition Ext.P7, before the 8th respondent. The petitioner relies on Section 21(6) of the Kerala Headload wpc No.17318/2010 2 Workers Act, 1978 (the 'Act' for short) to contend that the appeal should have been disposed of within a period of two weeks from 11.5.2010, the date of filing the same. In the above circumstances, appropriate directions are sought, for the disposal of Exts.P6 and P7 on an early date. 3. I have heard Adv.Koshy George who appears for the 6th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 4. In view of the limited relief that is sought, I feel that the Writ Petition itself can be disposed of directing the disposal of Exts.P6 and P7 on an early date. 5. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 8th respondent to consider Exts.P6 and P7 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and shall pass appropriate orders thereon. Until orders as indicated above are passed in the stay petition, the operation and implementation of Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/