IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1056 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- P.V.JOSEPH, POOL LEADER, POOL NO.34 A, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,SRM ROAD,KOCHI-18. 3. THE CHAIRPERSON, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, T.D.ROAD,KOCHI-35. 4. K.V.MURALEEDHARAN, THE POOL LEADER, POOL NO.42, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.RENI ANTO, SC FOR R2 AND R3 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTLE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 1056 OF 2009 (A) ==================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the Pool Leader of Pool number 34 A. According to him, their area of work is the Gosree Project area. It is stated that members of Pool No.42 claimed work in that area and when such a claim was raised on an earlier occasion, the same was turned down as per Ext.P8. However, again the members of Pool No.42 claimed work and that resulted in Ext.P11 order, by which the Committee alloted the area to the members of Pool No.42. Aggrieved by Ext.P11, petitioner sought review of that proceedings, which resulted in Ext.P13, by which the review was rejected. 2. A reading of Ext.P11 shows that the matter was enquired into and it was accepting the enquiry report that the Committee took a decision to allot the area to the members of Pool No.42. When the Committee took decision on such materials, I do not think this Court should entertain a challenge against that decision, atleast at this stage for the further reason that the petitioner themselves has taken up the issue before the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P14 representation. 3. In view of the above, I feel it only appropriate that the 2nd WPC 1056/09 :2 : respondent shall decide on Ext.P14 with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. This the 2nd respondent shall do so, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp