IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 32247 of 2008(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI, VARAPPUZHA, REG. NO. 510/05, (TOWN UNIT), VII/261, VARAPUZHA 68351 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SHRI BAIJU THALIATH, AGED 41, S/O.T.V. PAUL. BY ADVS. MR.R.T.PRADEEP MR.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, LOCAL COMMITTEE, NORTH PARAVOOR. 3. KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, VARAPUZHA UNIT. 4. C.I.T.U, A.I.T.U.C, I.N.T.U.C AND B.M.S, REPRESENTED BY SAMYUKTA HEAD LOAD WORKERS COUNCIL, VARAPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY POOL LEADER, POOL NO.1, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, VARAPUZHA. 5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R3 MR.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R3 MR.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH) FOR R4 MR.RAJESH NAIR FOR R4 MR.RENIL ANTO KANDAM KULATHY BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32247/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 22.3.06. P2:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 20.1.06. P3:- COPY OF THE CLAIMS OF PETITIONER DT. 6.6.08. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10.6.08. P5:- COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 27.6.08. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 22.8.08 IN WPC. NO.19935/08. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 18.10.08. IN HA. NO.5/08. P8:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 15.9.08. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS V.GIRI, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.32247 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, an association of members engaged in various businesses at Varapuzha, is aggrieved by the enhancement of wages for the loading and unloading work being done by the workers attached to the headload workers pool constituted under the Headload Workers Act. Dispute being raised as to the wages demanded by the pool workers, the 6th respondent District Labour Officer proceeded to pass Exhibit P4 order under Section 21(4) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. The said order is appealable under the Statute and hence, an appeal was preferred as Exhibit P5 by the petitioner before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner. The Regional Joint Labour Commissioner proceeded to pass order as Exhibit P7. In the meanwhile, the decision taken as per Exhibit P4 continues in force. 2. Exhibit P7, according to the petitioner, is a cryptic one and does not reveal any application of mind. The operative portion of Exhibit P7 order reads as follows: WP(C).32247/08 2 “The 1st respondent (Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board) was not represented and no evidence was adduced on their part. As most of the shop owners are the members of the 2nd respondent and they are paying the increased rate as ordered by the District Labour Officer, the Apppellant is also liable to pay the increased rate. On going through the evidences and depositions of the parties, I find no reason to interfere in the order of the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam. Therefore, the order No.C-2384/08 dated 10.6.2008 of the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam is upheld and the Appeal is dismissed.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner have been considered. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Powers of the appellate authority under the Headload Workers Act are coterminous with that of the original authority. The only reason given in Exhibit P4 to reject the WP(C).32247/08 3 appeal is that most of the shop owners are members of the third respondent Samithy. That is not a sufficient ground for not even considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, even if the assumption is correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assumption is factually wrong. In my view, that requires a reconsideration at the hands of the appellate authority. The details given in Exhibit P8 also may be considered by the appellate authority, after notice to the contesting respondents in the appeal. Accordingly, after setting aside Exhibit P7, first respondent is directed to reconsider Exhibit P5 appeal, after notice to the respondents in the appeal as well and take a decision thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, JUDGE vgs.