IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8017 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. U.KANNAN, S/O.UNNI MOOTHAN, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O. NELLISSERY THODI, PALAKKAD. 2. S.GOPALAKRISHNAN, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O. NELLISSERY THODI, PALAKKAD. 3. K.CHANDRAN, MANAKKALTHODI, VADAKKANTHRA P.O. PALAKKAD - 12. 4. MAHALINGAM, -DO- 5. K.PRAKASAN, DEVINAGAR, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O. NELLISSERY THODI, PALAKKAD. 6. MANOHARAN.S., METTUTHERUVU, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O. NELLISSERY THODI, PALAKKAD. 7. M.RAMAN, KARUKODI, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O. PALAKKAD. 8. T.KANNAN, MANAKKALTHODY, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O. , PALAKKAD. 9. V.MANOHARAN, MANAKKALTHODY, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O. NELLISSERY THODI, PALAKKAD. 10. N.GANGADHARAN, MANAKKALTHODY, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O PALAKKAD. 11. PRAKASAN.K., MANAKKALTHODY, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O. PALAKKAD. 12. SIVAMANI.S., -DO- 13. K.RAJAN, -DO- 14. BABU.V., -DO- 15. V.KUTTAN, -DO- 16. KRISHNADAS.U., -DO- 17. U.KUTTAN, -DO- 18. G.MANIKANTAN, -DO- 19. G.RAMACHANDRAN, -DO- 20. K.KRISHNANKUTTY, DEVI NAGAR, VADAKKUMTHARA P.O. PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: ------------- KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALAKKAD LOCAL COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. BY KOSHY GEORE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.8017 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order by which the application for registration submitted by the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Scheme, 1983, has been rejected under Clause 6A (4) of the Scheme. When it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioners that under Clause 6E of the Scheme an appeal lies to the Committee, he would submit that Ext.P6 order has been passed by the Committee itself as is clear from the same and not by the Convenor as prescribed in Rules 6 and 6A of the Rules. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent points out that in a similar case this court had directed a similarly placed petitioner to file an appeal before the Chief Executive of the Board. I am satisfied that a similar course can be adopted in this case also. Accordingly, if the petitioners file an appeal against Ext.P6 order before the Chief Executive of w.p.c.8017/08 2 the Board within two weeks from today, the Chief Executive shall consider and dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of the appeal. Any transfer of workers to the pool in question would be subject to the result of the appeal to be so filed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge