IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35038 of 2008(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. NAJMUDEEN, S/O.HAMSA, AGED 30 YEARS CHANDRAPURAM,WALAYAR, PALAKKAD. 2. P.K.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.ALIKUTTY, PALAKKODAN HOUSE, MANGATTUPURAM, KODUR PO., PERINTHALMANNA, NOW RESIDING AT CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR DAM PO., PALAKKAD. 3. PATTEESWARAN, S/O.KALIYAPPAN, KULIYANKADU, CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.RAMPRASAD UNNI.T. SMT. SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS ACT(THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. SHRI. H.MUHAMMED HANEEF, S/O.HASSAN MUHAMMED, SECRETARY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), VATTAPPARA UNIT, WALAYAR DAM POST, PALAKKAD. 3. SHRI. B.UDUMAN, S/O.BAPPUTTI, SECRETARY, DESIYA CHUMATTU THOZHILALI UNION (INTUC), VATTAPPARA UNIT, WALAYAR DAM POST, PALAKKAD. 4. OWN CITY MARBLES AND GRANITES, VATTAPARA, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.35038 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim to be registered Head Hoad workers attached to an establishment “Own City Marbles and Granites”, Vattappara, Walayar in Palakkad district. They have been issued identity cards evidencing their registration as Head Load workers as per Exhibits P1 to P3. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 who are office bearers of the Palakkad Dstrict Head Load Workers Union preferred Exhibit P4 appeal before the appellate authority. Petitioners contend that other head load workers who are only included in the pool have no authority to question to the registration granted in favour of the petitioners or seek cancellation of such registration, as they are not persons aggrieved under Rule 26C (1) of the Head Load Workers Scheme. W.P ( C) No.35038 of 2008 2 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Sri.K. Ramakumar refers to the judgment of this Court in Jnana Prakasam Vs. Natarajan [2002 (1) KLT 39], which considered the clause “any person aggrieved” in Rule 26C (1) and held as follows: “The decision in this appeal will rest upon the interpretation given to the words “any person aggrieved” in R.26C (1). Going by the literal meaning, any person who considers himself aggrieved will be able to file an appeal. With regard to the question whether the existing workmen can be said to be persons aggrieved by the grant of registration to fresh workmen in an area, the learned Single Judge was of the view that they cannot be said to be persons aggrieved. The words “persons aggrieved” have been read down only to include persons who have a right of hearing at the time of registration of the workmen. Such persons are the applicants and the employers. In relation to registration of attached workmen who are employed in a particular shop, third parties cannot have any right of hearing or any right of appeal. In the case of registration of workmen in a particular area, at the first instance, “aggrieved persons” will include only the applicants and the contractors. But when it comes to the case of application by new workmen in an area where there are already a set of workmen, the interpretation given by the learned single Judge will not be correct. If in an area fresh workmen also enter, that will result in sharing the cake by more mouths resulting in depletion of the share of existing workmen. This will affect the livelihood of the existing workmen which is considered as a concomitant of the right of life guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India.” W.P ( C) No.35038 of 2008 3 4. I am of the view that it is incumbent on the part of the appellate authority to first consider the maintainability of Exhibit P4 appeal in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jnana Prakasam. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the maintainability of Exhibit P4 appeal in the light of the law declared by the Bench of this Court in Jnana Prakasam Vs. Natarajan [2002 (1) KLT 39] after hearing the appellants in the appeal as also the petitioners herein and the owner of the establishment-the 4th respondent before further proceeding with the consideration of Exhibits P3 and Exhibit P4 appeal on merits. An order shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.35038 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.35038 of 2008 5