IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33067 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHN POLYMERS REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.CHANDY KURIAN. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES, OFFICE AT PALAKKAD. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER NEMMARA, PALAKKAD 3. K.DIVAKARAN S/O.KRISHNAN, PALLASANA PO., PALAKKAD. 4. RAMKUMARM.P., S/O.DIVAKARAN SRRESALLAM, NILAMBUR PO., MALAPPURAM. 5. SANAL.P.MAMMAN, S/O.MAMMAN P.V., PATTASSERIL HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH PO., THRISSUR. 6. A.NOORUDDIN, S/O.ABDUL MUTHALIF ATTAYAMPATHY, GOVINDAPURAM PO., PALAKKAD. 7. K.ALAVUDHEEN, S/O.KHADERPPA RAWTHER ATTAYAMPATHY, GOVINDAPURAM PO., PALAKKAD. 8. C.ANPURAJ, S/O.CHINNA, MEENKARA, GOVINDAPURAM PO., PALAKKAD. 9. KAJA HUSSAIN, S/O.SHOUKATHALI, ATTAYAMPATHY, GOVINDAPURAM PO., PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the license issued by the Special Grade Grama Panchayat Mudalamada vide Ref. NO. A3/14/2008 dt.9.6.2005. Ext.P2. True copy of the acknowledgment. Ext.P3. True copy of the receipt NO.70992-(95) issued by Secretary Grama Panchayat Muthalamada to the petitioner dated 31.5.2008. Ext.P4. True copy of the receipt NO.70992 issued by the Secretary Grama Panchayat Ext.P5. True copy of the Form NO.11, identity cards recognized by the ALO, Nemmara Ext.P6. True copy of the impugned order. Ext.P7 True copy of the notes of arguments. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.33067 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that respondents 3 to 5 are their attached workers. On an application made by the workers, the 2nd respondent granted registration to them under Rule 26 of the Head Load Workers Rules and cards were issued. Respondents 6 to 9 filed an appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent before the first respondent and that appeal was allowed by Ext.P6 order. The main reason stated is about the irregularity in the enquiry that preceded the order of the 2nd respondent and that the same was passed without notice to respondents 6 to 9, the Union workers. It is challenging Ext.P6 that this writ petition is filed. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that having found irregularities on the part of the 2nd respondent in passing the order the first respondent has cancelled the cards WP(c).No.33067/08 2 issued to respondents 3 to 5 and allowed the appeal. In my view, although the first respondent has entitled to take a view appealable to him, the proper course which he ought to have adopted was to remand the matter to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration. This has not been done and therefore it is ordered that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the application made by respondents 3 to 5 for registration with notice to respondents 6 to 9 and pass fresh orders in the matter. In the meanwhile, Ext.P9 application made shall also be considered. Therefore, the writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to reconsider the order which has been set aside in Ext.P6 and pass orders with notice to respondents 3 to 5 and 6 to 9. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.33067/08 3