IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15629 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. PAVITHRAN P.N., PALLAVAYAL KURUMA COLONY, NELLARACHAL POST, THOMATTUCHAL VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. RAMAN, NADUVEETTIL KURUMA COLONY, NELLARACHAL POST, AMBALAVAYAL VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT 3. JANARDHANAN N.K., NELLARA HOUSE, NELLARACHAL KURUMA COLONY, NELLARACHAL POST, AMBALAVAYAL VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. GOPI P.S., NELLARA HOUSE, NELLARACHAL KURUMA COLONY, NELLARACHAL POST, AMBALAVAYAL VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. RAJEESH A.G., KUNDARA AAPPALAM HOUSE, KADALMAD POST, THOMMATTUCHAL VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, WAYANAD. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15629 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are residents of Sulthan Bathery. They belong to the tribal areas and claim to be persons belonging to backward communities. They are persons who have been earning their livelihood by doing headload work in the quarries in the area for many years. According to them, they were being exploited by outsiders for the reason that they do not have any education. The major unions of the area also do not support them. On the contrary, the unions have obstructed them from pursuing their avocation and earning a livelihood on the ground that they are not persons who are registered under the Headload Workers Act. 2. In the above circumstances, the quarry owners have raised a dispute, which the second respondent had tried to settle by conciliation. However, he could not succeed and therefore, he has submitted a failure report. In the above circumstances, the dispute has to be decided wpc No.15629/2010 2 by the first respondent under Section 21(4) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. The complaint of the petitioners is that the first respondent is not passing any orders under Section 21(4), as required by law. According to the petitioners, the delay in deciding the issue is causing serious prejudice to them for the reason that they were being denied work by the unions in the area. Therefore, they seek appropriate directions to the first respondent to adjudicate the dispute that is pending before him in accordance with law. The learned Senior Government Pleader has no objection to such a direction being issued. 3. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent, to pass final orders on Dispute No.25/2010 referred to him by the Assistant Labour Officer, Sulthan Bathery as per Ext.P3 in accordance with law, 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. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/