IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 985 of 2010(D) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27638/2010 DATED 15/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WP(C): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KARINKAL THOZHILALI LOADING UNION (CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 591. 2. KARINKAL THOZHILALI LOADING UNION (INTUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 591. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.G. CLIPPY, S/O.GEORGE, MANAGING PARTNER, C.B.M. ENTERPRISES, MATTAPPARA, KOLAGAPPARA P.O., AMBALAVAYAL TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 591. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, MEENANGADI P.O., WAYANAD – 673 591. R1 BY ADV. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE. R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.R. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.985 of 2010 in W.P.(C).27638 of 2010-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011. Order Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners, learned senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the first respondent, who is the writ petitioner. This review petition is filed essentially on two grounds. First is that the notice addressed to the review petitioners from the writ petition was delivered in a wrong address. The second contention is that the review petitioners represent the interest of people who are doing loading and unloading work and who are registered workers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. RP985/10 -: 2 :- They say that it is also a scheme covered area. They stand to assert that the loading and unloading activity in the establishment of the writ petitioner(the first respondent herein) is carried out not exclusively using any mechanical device but also by employing physical labour. Reading the judgment sought to be reviewed, we are clear that the same is issued only on the basis that the loading is being done only using mechanical device. Therefore, we clarify that the directions in the judgment dated 15.9.2010 would apply only for the loading activity by using mechanical device. This cannot be used to preclude the employment of any headload worker who may be entitled to work, if there is loading activity otherwise than mechanical device in the establishment of the writ petitioner(first respondent herein). If the writ petitioner has his own permanent workers who may have registration and identity card in terms of the Act, Rules and Scheme, he would be at liberty to RP985/10 -: 3 :- employ them in preference to others from the open market. The review petition ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Q.Barkath Ali, Judge. Sha/1503