IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28190 of 2007(E)
1. A.MOHAMMED KHALID, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ALATHUR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :08/10/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.28190 OF 2007
----------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an employer doing business in the
Thenkurissi Panchayath of Palakkad District. He has his own
workers for doing loading and unloading work in his
establishment, who are arrayed as respondents 2 to 6 in the
writ petition. The said workers have applied before the 1st
respondent for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala
Headload Workers Rules. The petitioner complains of delay
in considering the said applications. Initially, I had raised a
doubt as to whether the petitioner can file this writ petition
seeking disposal of applications filed by the workers. With
the help of the decision in Perfect Engineers and
Contractors Vs. The Assistant Labour Officer (2004(1)
KLT SN 71), the petitioner asserts that he does have right
to do so. On a reading of the said decision, I am also
W.P.(c)No.28190/07 2
satisfied that the petitioner can seek his remedy by filing
this writ petition.
2. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the
1st respondent to consider Exts.P3 to P7 filed by
respondents 2 to 6 expeditiously.
3. Sri. Rajesh Sivaramankutty advocate stated to
be representing the headload workers professing
allegiance to the CITU and INTUC Unions of headload
Workers of the area who intends to seek themselves to be
impleaded in the writ petition, submits that those unions
also may be directed to be heard in the matter. The
petitioner submits that they have no right to be so heard
under the Act and Rules. After having heard both sides, I
dispose of this writ petition with the following directions.
The 1st respondent shall consider and pass
appropriate orders on Exts.P3 to P7 as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. While disposing of the
same, the Union representatives of the Headload Workers
of the area professing allegiance to CITU and INTUC also
W.P.(c)No.28190/07 3
may given notice of hearing. However, I make it clear
that it would be open to the petitioner to object to the
locus standi of the unions to object to the claim of the
workers seeking registration and the A.L.O shall decide
the question as to whether they have locus standi in the
matter. The mere fact that I have directed issue of notice
of hearing to the unions would not stand in the way of the
A.L.O. deciding that question also.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.28190/07 4