IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34762 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.R.SREENIVASAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KURINJANKAL HOUSE, KOCHUTHOVALA P.O., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. V.P.BINU, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, RESIDIN AT VAZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, KOCHUTHOVALA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT LAKSHMIKULAM, VELLAYAMKUDY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, THODUPUZHA LOCAL COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, RIVER VIEW ROAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, SUB-COMMITTEE, KATTAPPANA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE LABOUR OFFICER, NEDUMKANDAM, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. BHAGYADAS, PROP. "ANNAI VELANKANNI MATHA", POLISH STONE WORKS, KATTAPPANA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R1 SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 34762 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim to be headload workers entitled to work as such in the Kattapana Panchayat area. They have raised a dispute regarding their non-employment by the 4th respondent. They have filed Ext.P2 representation before the 2nd respondent in this regard. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent is not attending to Ext.P2 appropriately as required under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, Rules and Scheme thereunder. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent at this juncture. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity being heard to the petitioners, the 4th respondent and any other person, if likely to be affected by the orders to be passed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2