IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10540 of 2005(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.T.KOCHUKUNJU, PLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVALLA P.O., RAMANCHIRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. P.P.SUSEELAN, PONNAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., RAMANCHIRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR, SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA LOCAL COMMITTEE, COLLEGE ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. M/S. C M R STEEL AGENCY, M.C. ROAD, RAMANCHIRA, THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. BIJU K.JOHN, KODUNTHARAYIL, NIRANAM WEST, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. V.S.JOSEPH, VALAYIL, NEERETTUPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. K.P.JOSE, AVUNGATTIL KALTHIL, KAVIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. W.P.(C).NO.10540/2005-D: 8. ANTONY A.T., EZHUVANTHANAM, PALLIKKACHIRA, PAYIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 9. BABU M.J., ASARIKKUNNEL, VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM. 10. HABEEB RAHMAN, CHEMBUTHARA, PUZHAVATH, CHANGANACHERRI, KOTTAYAM. 11. SABU MATHEW, THIRUVATTAMANNIL, THOTTABHAGOM, KAVIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 12. LATHEEF, NANKARAMALAYIL, MUTHOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 13. BABU G., PADIKKAKKULAM, THRIKKODITHANAM, KOTTAYAM. 14. MADHU V.K., VALUPARAMBIL, MANJADI, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN, R3 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, S.C, R4 BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS, R5 TO R.14 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.10540/2005-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA DTD. 08/08/2003 IN I.A. 1591/2003 IN O.S. 299/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.29129/2003 DTD. 03/10/2003. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.HL.783-792/03 DTD. 15/03/2004 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/03/2004 OF THE R.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/07/2004 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E.200/03 DTD. 15/06/2004 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 01/10/2004 IN W.P.(C).NO.22015/2004(U) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/01/2005 OF THE R.1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10540 of 2005 – D ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this case is whether the registration given by the second respondent to the respondents 5 to 14 under S.26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules 1981 is unsustainable in manner. 2. The petitioners, who are headload workers, challenged the proceedings mooted before the concerned authority, particularly the second respondent with regard to the steps for registration as aforesaid, which culminated in Ext.P5 order granting registration. This in turn was subjected to challenge, by filing of Ext.P7 appeal. The petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 22015/04 wherein Ext.P8 judgment was passed, directing the first respondent/appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeal, as specified. After considering the issue at length, the first respondent rejected the appeal as per Ext.P9 order; which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent and also learned 2 W.P.(C) No.10540/2005 Government Pleader for the departmental authorities. 4. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved is squarely covered against the petitioners as per the verdict passed by this Court reported in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer [2010(4) KLT 783]. In such circumstance, this Court finds that nothing further survives to be considered or adjudicated in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, as devoid of any merit. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rka