IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 465 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8558/2005 Dated 17/11/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): (PETITIONER) -------------------------- SHANMUGHAN A.S., KURATHIKATTIL VEEDU, KANNAMKULANGARA, KOORANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS) ---------------------------- 1. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, LOCAL COMMITTEE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. P.Y.AGASTI, PALLIPURATHUKARAN HOUSE, VADOOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. 5. ROBERT K.E., KANJIRATHINKA HOUSE, VADOOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. 6. K.I.PAULSON, KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE, ANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR. 7. P.D.ABI CHEMBUKKAVU HOUSE, BROTHER LAND, THRISSUR. 8. DANBY K.A., KURUTHIKULANGARA HOUSE, PULLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR. 9. JAISON PAUL, CHACKALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTANELLOOR P.O., THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 465 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Question raised in the Writ Appeal is on the inter-se seniority of the appellant with respondents 4 to 9. The appellant's case is that though he applied for registration as a headload worker much earlier than the date on which respondents 4 to 9 applied for registration, those respondents were first granted registration and appellant was granted registration much thereafter. The learned single Judge without going into the merits of the case directed the appellant to raise a dispute under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act for decision by the statutory authority. Registration is granted by the Asst. Labour Officer and being a higher authority, the District Labour Officer could certainly settle the dispute under Rule 26(c) of the Rules is the case of the appellant. We find force in this contention because without any reference, the matter in our opinion would be settled by the DLO after calling for records and report from the ALO. However, counsel for the 2 appellant and standing counsel for the first respondent submitted that by virtue of judgment of this Court in another case, registration granted to respondents 4 to 9 stands cancelled. Therefore as of now, the appellant's grievance against inter-se seniority does not survive as the registration granted to respondents 4 to 9 is cancelled. Counsel appearing for the appellant expressed the apprehension that if the judgment of this Court is reversed by the Supreme Court, registration originally granted to respondents 4 to 9 will stand restored and appellant's grievance will again get revived. We feel in this contigency the appellant should be free to raise a dispute before the DLO under Rule 26(c) of the Rules and it is for the DLO to settle the dispute after issuing notice and after hearing the contesting parties. We dispose of the Writ Appeal with direction to DLO to settle the dispute in case it arises as stated above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3