IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28369 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. EDATHALA MODERN RICE MILL, CHELAMATTAM, OKKAL P.O, PERUMBAVOOR-683 550, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.E.V.BABY. 2. MR.JOSE.K.V, S/O.VAREETH.K.O, KAROOTTAPPURAM (H), CHELAMATTAM, OKKAL.P.O. 3. MR.VARGHESE.E.M, S/O.MATHAI, EDATHALA (H), CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL.P.O. 4. MR.THANKACHAN, S/O.AVARA, KAROTTAPURAM HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL.P.O. 5. MR.RAJAN.P.K, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, PULAPPILLY HOUSE, OKKAL.P.O. 6. MR.SHAJU VARGHESE, S/O.VARKEY.P.O, PALASSERY HOUSE, POTHIAKKARA, YORDANAPURAM.P.O. 7. MR.JOSE.K.V, S/O.VARKEY, KAROTTAMPPURAM HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE CHAIRPERSON, HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR LOCAL COMMITTEE. G.P. SHRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV.KOSHY GEORGE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28369 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is an employer employing headload workers. They intend to employ petitioners 2 to 7 as headload workers in their establishment. For this purpose, petitioners 2 to 7 have submitted Exts.P5 to P10 applications for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. The petitioners seek a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 to P10 applications expeditiously. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that petitioners 2 to 7 are not entitled for registration under Rule 26A, in so far as the rights of the parties have been decided by Ext.P3 order of the District Labour Officer, passed under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, which has been confirmed in appeal also, as per Ext.P4 order. 3. I have considered the rival arguments of the parties. 4. I am of opinion that whether Exts.P3 and P4 orders would stand in the way of petitioners 2 to 7 getting registration is a matter which the 1st respondent has to consider while passing orders on Exts.P5 to P10. Of course, since the 2nd respondent is entitled to be heard in the matter under Rule 26A, he can very well bring this to the 2 attention of the 1st respondent at the time of hearing, even if the unions in Ext.P3 are not parties before the 1st respondent. In fact it would be open to the 1st respondent to implead the unions also in the matter before taking a decision on Exts.P5 to P10 if he considers it necessary. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P10 after complying with the procedure prescribed under Rule 26A and after hearing the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent. I make it celar that it would be open to the 1st respondent to implead other unions of headload workers involved in Exts.P3 and P4 orders also, if found necessary. Orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge