IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28908 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M.H.FAIZAL, AGED 27 YEARS, SON OF HAMEED M.K., 3/144, NELLUKADAVU, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682 001. 2. P.M.KALAM, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF MAKKAR, 6/1475, PUTHUKADUPARAMBU, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002. 3. M.NOUSHAD, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF MOIDEEN, 5/1385, PALIYATHPARAMBU, MASS ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002. BY ADVS. MR.H.B.SHENOY MR.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY MR.ABU MATHEW MR.SOBHAN GEORGE MR.K.V.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 030. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KOCHI II CIRCLE, FORT VYPIN, AZHEEKAL P.O., KOCHI. 3. COCHIN THURUMUGHA THOZHILALI UNION (CTTU), REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003. 4. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MATTANCHERRY LOCAL COMMITTEE, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 5. VEE YEM TRADE LINKS, 6/1513, IRUMBICHI, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.A.ABDUL WAHID, AGED 36 YEARS, SON OF P.A.ABDUL AZEEZ. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM ADVS. MR.THOMAS P.MAKIL FOR R5 MR.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R4 MR.B.N.SHIVSANKAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28908 of 2009(G) APPENDIX PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION NOTICE NO. EKM 11345 DTED 29.10.2008 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD NO. 07/04/123/2008 DATED NIL ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO M.NOUSHAD. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD NO. 07/04/124/2008 DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO P.M.KALAM. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD NO. 07/04/125/2008 DATED NIL ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO FAIZAL. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.2.2009 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WPC NO. 4 OF 2009. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C-739/2009 DATED 15.5.2009 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28908 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim to be headload workers entitled to registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. They obtained registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. But that was granted without hearing the 4th respondent as envisaged under Rule 26A. The 3rd respondent challenged the order granting registration to the petitioners, before the 1st respondent appellate authority. The 1st respondent considered the appeal and, finding that the orders were passed without hearing the 4th respondent, allowed the appeal and set aside the order without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file fresh applications before the 2nd respondent for registration. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1st respondent, without hearing the petitioners and therefore, the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, they seek quashing of Ext.P6. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 3, 4 and 5, and the learned Government Pleader. 3. I am of opinion that respondents 1 and 2 have committed the same mistake. First the 2nd respondent committed the mistake of allowing the applications filed by the petitioners without hearing the 4th respondent which is mandatory as per Rule 26A. In the appeal filed by 2 the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent committed the mistake of allowing that appeal without hearing the petitioners. Both are violative of the provisions of the Rules and principles of natural justice. Therefore both orders are unsustainable. In any event, I do not think that the petitioners can be directed to file fresh applications for registration even if it is accepted that the grant of registration without hearing the 4th respondent is wrong. When the appeal is allowed on the ground that the 4th respondent was not heard, the duty of the 1st respondent was to quash the order of the 2nd respondent and remand the same to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration of the very same applications in accordance with Rule 26A and not to direct the petitioners to file fresh applications. 4. In the above circumstances, that part of Ext.P6 whereby the petitioners have been directed to submit fresh applications is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the applications submitted by the petitioners for registration under rule 26A after complying with the procedure prescribed under the Rule 26A and hearing the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5. Fresh orders shall be passed after complying with the above procedures as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE