IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27223 of 2010(C)
1. MOHAMMED RAFI, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. EASA KUNJU.M, POTTIVILAKATHU HOUSE,
3. SHAJAHAN M., NAZEER MANZIL,
4. P.P.HAREES, ISLAM SABHA LINE ROOM,
5. SAIFUDEEN H., PLAVILA VEEDU,
6. THE CONVENER, (INTUC),
7. THE CONVENER, (CITU),
8. THE CONVENER, (AITUC),
9. THE CONVENER, (BMS),
10. THE CHAIRMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :03/09/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO.27223 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Proprietor of Jumbo Margin Free Iron and Steel,
Pothancodu, Thiruvananthapuram. He was given license as per Ext.P1 by the
Pothencodu Grama Panchayat. The contention of the petitioner is that for the
purpose of getting registration of respondents 2 to 5 as headload workers, he
has submitted applications under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers
Rules, 1981( for short ‘the Rules’ only). Exts.P2 to P5 are the applications
submitted for that behalf. After considering Exts.P2 to P5, the first respondent
has passed Ext.P7 dated 12.5.2010. As per Ext.P7, it was found that already
workers were in excess in the said area and further registration of workers
would affect the prospects of the existing workers affiliated to Unions.
According to the petitioner, the said reasoning of the first respondent in Ext.P7
is unsustainable. That apart, it is his contention that the existing registered
workers in that area got no locus standi to challenge the request for registration
of workers made as per Exts.P2 to P5. It is challenging Ext.P7 and inter alia,
raising such contentions and praying for consequential reliefs that this Writ
W.P.(C) NO.27223/2010 2
Petition has been filed.
2. A perusal of Ext.P7 and the provisions under `the Rules’ would reveal
that an alternative efficacious remedy has been provided to redress the grievance
against Ext.P7. In other words, Ext.P7 is an appealable order. Therefore, I do
not propose to go into the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition.
In view of the existence of such an alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner
is bound to avail the same before approaching this Court. Accordingly, this Writ
Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate
authority against Ext.P7 in accordance with Rule 26C of the Rules. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would avail the said
remedy within a period of two weeks. But there is a delay in preferring an
appeal against Ext.P7. The appellate authority is, admittedly, empowered to
condone the delay in filing appeals on showing just and reasonable cause.
Therefore, it is up to the petitioner to satisfy the appellate authority by filing a
proper petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In case the
petitioner prefers such a petition to condone delay, along with the appeal, the
appellate authority shall consider the same and consider the appeal subject to
W.P.(C) NO.27223/2010 3
such decision.
This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.27223/2010 4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
W.P.(C) NO.27223/2010 5