IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 747 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16806/2009 Dated 18/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: 4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ THE POOL LEADER, POOL NO.22, HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KALAMASSERY LOCAL COMMITTEE, HMT COLONY ROAD, KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,3 & 5 IN THE WPC -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARTIN A.J., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE A.R.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, M/S.JAYEM AGENCIES, RESIDING AT 41/2064, KALABAVAN ROAD, KOCHI-18. 2. AMSTRONG SEBASTIAN, MATTUNGAL HOUSE, KARUMALLUR P.O., MANJALY, N.PARAVUR. 3. BINEESH K.V., KARUPPUMTHODO HOUSE, VAKERY P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. 4. ELDHO ALIAS, PUTHURAN HOUSE, POIKATTUSSERY, CHENGAMANAD, ALWAYE. 5. V.X.ANTONY, VALLARPPALLY HOUSE, CHETTIMUKKU, RAJAGIRI P.O., KOCHI. R.P. 747/2009 2 6. JABBAR P.A., PULIKKAYATH HOUSE, VADACODE P.O., KANGARAPPADY, KOCHI-21. 7. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA. 8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA. 9. THE ASST.LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAN, 2ND CIRCLE, KOCHI-30. 10. THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KALAMASSERY LOCAL COMMITTEE, T.D.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, S.C. FOR R10 SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) FOR R6 & 7 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. LAKSHMINARAYAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 747/2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 16806/2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. Seeking police protection, W.P.(C) 16806/2009 was filed. We directed that permanent workers who had applied for registration, shall not be obstructed and protection was afforded to that limited extent. However, we made it clear that the right, if any, of the 4th respondent will not be affected which is a matter which the third respondent has to consider. 2. It is now contended that pursuant to the judgment, the third respondent has considered the application of the five workmen and rejected the same. If so, that is not a ground for reviewing the judgment since it is at the time only when the matter was pending consideration, this order was passed. If their applications are considered and found against, only when such order is set aside in appropriate forum that the benefit of the order could be continued as far as they are concerned. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-