IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11246 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.V.ASOKAN ,AGE 48, S/O.,VASU POOL LEADER, POOL 17, MULAMTHURUTHY ERNAKULAM. 2. K.T.PHILIP,AGE 42,S/O.THOMAS POOL LEADER, POOL 27, EDAKKATTUVAYAL VIA ARAKUNAM, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SMT.PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM SMT.ELIZEBETH MEERA SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. LOCAL COMMITTEE, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD THRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN ERNAKULAM. 2. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD REP. BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ERNAKULAM. 3. K.K.REMANAN, AGED 45, S/O. KRISHNAN POOL LEADER, POOL 18, ARAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM. SHRI.RENIL ANTO,SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.11246 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are pool leaders of two pools of headload workers in certain local areas in Ernakulam District. They have a grievance regarding transfer of certain areas within their jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of other pools. Initially there was an amicable settlement, against which the pool leaders of the pool to which those areas were transferred approached the respondents and the respondents formed a committee which included the Conciliation Officer and the Appellate Authority under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act to consider the dispute who took a decision against the interests of the petitioners. Against that decision, the petitioners have filed Exts.P8 and P9 objections. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners could not participate in the deliberations which resulted in the impugned orders. Because of the fact that the decision was taken by a committee consisting of the Conciliation Officer and the Appellate Authority under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, they are not able to raise a dispute also. They submit that the decision now taken against them is against the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers w.p.c.11246/08 2 Act and the Rules and the Scheme framed under the Act. However, the petitioners, for the present, confine their relief for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9 expeditiously. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Headload Workers Welfare Board also. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the 2nd respondent should have a second look into the matter by disposing of Exts.P8 and P9 objections filed by the petitioners in this regard. Accordingly, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P8 and P9 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and others who may be affected by the orders to be passed on Exts.P8 and P9. Till orders are so passed, the impugned orders shall not be enforced. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.11246/08 3