IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WA.No. 673 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5610/2010 Dated 01/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ C.V. JOLLY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PRESIDENT, VYAPARI VYAVASAYI, EKOPANA SAMITHY, VARAPPUZHA (TOWN UNIT), REG.NO.ER-S10/05, VII/261, VARAPUZHA - 683 517, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OFFICE OF KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM NORTH. 2. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, T.D. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PARAVOOR LOCAL COMMITTEE, MARKET ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR - 683 513. 4. A.K. PIOUS, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, PUTHENPALLY, VARAPUZHA.P.O. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.673 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 ORDER/JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant, who is stated to be the President of Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samity of Varapuzha ( Town Unit) has filed this appeal impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by him. 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found that the grievance of the appellant that his name had been excluded from the panel of nominees representing the employers in his area ( Varapuzha Town Unit) was vitiated by extraneous consideration, malafides, political bias etc. could not be substantiated by him. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. 3. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that his organisation of which he is the President, had suggested his name as one of the representatives of the employers in Paravur Advisory Committee. Ext.P8 is stated to be the said list of nominees. WA.No.673/2010 2 However, according to the appellant, the District Committee tinkered with the said list and excluded his name and prepared a panel consisting of five members as can be seen from Annexure A produced along with the statement filed by the Board (respondent No.1). 4. The learned Single Judge after considering the above contentions took the view that the appellant had no right to insist that he should be nominated as a representative of the employers in the Advisory Committee. In other words, learned Judge held that the District Committee was free to prepare a list as it deemed fit, and dismissed the writ petition. 5. When this appeal came up for consideration, we directed Sri.Koshy George, learned standing counsel for the Board, to produce the relevant files. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel. Having perused the entire materials available before us and also having heard learned counsel at length, we are of the view that the contentious issue raised by the appellant has to be necessarily decided by the Board itself. WA.No.673/2010 3 7. Sri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant will be satisfied, if the issue is relegated to the Board for a final decision . But he prays that the Board may be directed to consider Ext.P8 along with Annexure A before taking a final decision since according to him, his nomination by the local unit will have to be given due weight and credence as otherwise the whole idea of democratic functioning of the system will be in peril. We do not find any reason why the Board cannot have an open mind in this matter. Learned standing counsel for the Board also submits that the issue will be given a quietus by the Board in a just and fair manner. He further submits that Ext.P8 will be kept in view by the Board when Annexure A list forwarded by the District Committee is taken up for consideration. However, learned standing counsel points out that it is for the Board to decide whether such an Advisory Committee is necessary in the area in question. We do not propose to make any comment on this aspect, since the Board may have the final say in these matters subject of course to the condition that any such decision has to pass the test of enquiry and fair play. A final decision WA.No.673/2010 4 in the manner as indicated above shall be taken by the Board as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The files shall be returned to the learned standing counsel. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. WA.No.673/2010 5