IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 25682 of 2004(G) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- 1. K.MURUKAN, S/O.C.KRISHNAN, THALAPPANKODU PUTHEN VEEDU, VILAVOORKAL, MALAYINKEEZHU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.MAHESH KUMAR, S/O.R.SOMAN, MAHESH NIVAS, K.P. 1/137, BEACH P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. B.MOHANAN NAIR, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, CHITRA BHAVAN, PULIMATHU, KARETTU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN AND CONVENOR, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFAE BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OPRTHODOX STUDENT CENTRE BUILDING, OPP.A.K.G.CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER, SC, KHLWWB SRI.BABU KARUKAPPADATH, SC, KHLWWB SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY, SC, KHLWWB SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 25682 of 2004(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1(a) TO (c) : IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED BY THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2 : THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD 27/10/2003. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND 27 OTHERS WITH THE SHOP OWNERS DATED 10/1/2001. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE RESOLUTION COMMUNICATED TO THE SECRETARIES OF THE UNION DATED 11/6/2004. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD 6/8/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25682 Of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exhibit P4 resolution by the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board, Thiruvananthapuram District Committee. It appears that thereafter the petitioners have filed a representation as per Exhibit P5. 2. The only question is whether the dispute regarding priority of employment have been gone into by the Committee. Various aspects have been pointed out in the Writ Petition. It is not clear whether the representation Exhibit P5 was considered by the District Committee. If Exhibit P5 is still pending, the 2nd respondent will consider the matter in accordance with law with notice to the various parties and will take appropriate decision in the matter. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge