IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7719 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAMBASIVAN P,S.S.BHAVAN, PUTHENKULANGARA P.O.,NEDUMANGADU, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. P.GOPALAKRISHNAN, ANI NIVAS. PIPE LINE ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPIRSES LIMITED, ST.JOSEPH PRESS BUILDING, COTTON HILL ROAD, VAZHUTHACADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP K C SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.7719 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are former porters attached to the Air Cargo Complex at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport. They retired from service on Superannuation in the year 2005 on attaining 60 years of age. Their case is that the then Local Officer of the second respondent as well as the leaders of the union in which they were members, had assured them that their services would be regularised. On the above assurance, though the petitioners were regularly attending head load work, they were not registered under the Kerala Head load Workers Act, 1978. Thus, the petitioners and other workers like them neither got regularisation nor registration under the Head load Workers Act. According to the petitioners, though they were registered as porters, the nature of their work was essentially head load work. They also claim that their sons are entitled to get license to do the loading and unloading work that was previously attended to by their fathers. They had submitted Exts.P2 and P5 representations which are pending Wpc 7719/2010 2 consideration of the second respondent. The petitioners complain that no orders have been passed on Exts.P2 and P3 till date. They pray for an expeditious disposal of Exts.P2 and P3. 2. In view of the limited relief that is sought for, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents in this writ petition. 3. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners, evidenced herein by Exts.P2 and P3, in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners also, either personally or through their authorised representatives. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this writ petition as well as a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk