IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27223 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MOHAMMED RAFI, PROPRIETOR, JUMBO MARGIN FREE, IRON AND STEEL, PP IX/846 (1), KAZHAKUTTAM BYE PASS, POTHANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 304. 2. EASA KUNJU.M, POTTIVILAKATHU HOUSE, MANJAPRA, THALAKUZHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 612. 3. SHAJAHAN M., NAZEER MANZIL, PALLINADA, POTHENCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 584. 4. P.P.HAREES, ISLAM SABHA LINE ROOM, NEERVEL (P.O), NIRMALAGIRI (VIA), THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN - 670 101. 5. SAIFUDEEN H., PLAVILA VEEDU, EDAVILAKOM, MURRUKKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 302. 6. THE CONVENER, (INTUC), POTHENCODE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 584. W.P.(C). NO.27223/2010-C: 7. THE CONVENER, (CITU), POTHENCODE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 584. 8. THE CONVENER, (AITUC), POTHENCODE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 584. 9. THE CONVENER, (BMS), POTHENCODE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 584. 10. THE CHAIRMAN, HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 101. R.1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, R.10 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, S.C, KHLWWB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.27223 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Proprietor of Jumbo Margin Free Iron and Steel, Pothancodu, Thiruvananthapuram. He was given license as per Ext.P1 by the Pothencodu Grama Panchayat. The contention of the petitioner is that for the purpose of getting registration of respondents 2 to 5 as headload workers, he has submitted applications under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981( for short 'the Rules' only). Exts.P2 to P5 are the applications submitted for that behalf. After considering Exts.P2 to P5, the first respondent has passed Ext.P7 dated 12.5.2010. As per Ext.P7, it was found that already workers were in excess in the said area and further registration of workers would affect the prospects of the existing workers affiliated to Unions. According to the petitioner, the said reasoning of the first respondent in Ext.P7 is unsustainable. That apart, it is his contention that the existing registered workers in that area got no locus standi to challenge the request for registration of workers made as per Exts.P2 to P5. It is challenging Ext.P7 and inter alia, raising such contentions and praying for consequential reliefs that this Writ W.P.(C) NO.27223/2010 2 Petition has been filed. 2. A perusal of Ext.P7 and the provisions under `the Rules' would reveal that an alternative efficacious remedy has been provided to redress the grievance against Ext.P7. In other words, Ext.P7 is an appealable order. Therefore, I do not propose to go into the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition. In view of the existence of such an alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner is bound to avail the same before approaching this Court. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against Ext.P7 in accordance with Rule 26C of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would avail the said remedy within a period of two weeks. But there is a delay in preferring an appeal against Ext.P7. The appellate authority is, admittedly, empowered to condone the delay in filing appeals on showing just and reasonable cause. Therefore, it is up to the petitioner to satisfy the appellate authority by filing a proper petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In case the petitioner prefers such a petition to condone delay, along with the appeal, the appellate authority shall consider the same and consider the appeal subject to W.P.(C) NO.27223/2010 3 such decision. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.27223/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.27223/2010 5