High Court Kerala High Court

Satheesan T.C. vs The Assistant Labour Officer on 19 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Satheesan T.C. vs The Assistant Labour Officer on 19 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23949 of 2008(A)


1. SATHEESAN T.C., THALAPPILLY HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RENJITH P.E., PEZHATHINKAL HOUSE,
3. JIBI T.B., THANDASSERIL HOUSE,
4. MANIKUTTAN V.L., VELIYATHUPARAMBIL,
5. KRIJITH P.K., PERUMUTTATH HOUSE,
6. SIJU V.G., VALIYAPARAMBIL, KALOOR,
7. SONY K.P., KALATHIL HOUSE, KUTTUKAD,
8. SIBEESH P.V.
9. P.A.SHOWKATHALI, PAZHAYIDATH,
10. JYOTHISH KUMAR C.S., S/O.SHANMUGHAN,
11. UNNIKRISHNAN P.N., S/O.NATARAJAN P.K.,
12. POULY, S/O.ANTONY, MADAVANA,
13. SHIBIN K.J., S/O.JOSHI, KOLARIKAL
14. ANEESH T.A., S/O.ASOKAN, TACHERIL
15. AJEESH V.B., S/O.BHARATHAN V.S.,

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JANARDHANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/08/2008

 O R D E R
                        S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                ------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.23949 OF 2008
              ----------------------------------------
               Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioners claim to be headload workers aspiring for

registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers

Rules. They have filed Exts.P1 to P15 applications before the

respondent for registration under that Rule. The petitioners

would submit that the respondent is not considering the

applications insisting that only if the petitioners join the Scheme

they would be given such registration, which according to the

petitioners is against the Headload Workers Act, Rules and

Scheme. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondent to

consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 to P15 expeditiously.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

The learned Government Pleader would submit that in the area in

question, there is no sufficient head load work available for

registering additional headload workers.

After hearing both sides, I am of opinion that I am not

called upon to decide these questions at this point of time. It is

W.P.(c)No.23949/08 2

for the respondent to consider the applications in the first

instance, following the procedure prescribed in Rule 26A of the

Kerala Headload Workers Rules. When applications are

submitted under that Rule, the respondent has a duty to

dispose of the same expeditiously.

Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction

to the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on

Exts.P1 to P15 applications as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment, after complying with the procedure

prescribed in Rule 26A. The petitioners shall forward a

certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ

petition to the respondent for compliance.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd

W.P.(c)No.23949/08 3