ABDUL MAJEED Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is one of the appellants in Ext. P5. The petitioner along with 30 other head load workers sought for registration under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978. The same having been declined by the registering authority, they were before the appellate authority in appeal evidenced by Ext. P5. In fact, while they were before the registering authority the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board had expressed an opinion that they are not liable to be registered. However, the learned counsel produces Ext. P3 by which the Board changed its opinion and recommended their registration. It is also pertinent that the Railways, whose work is conducted by the appellants, who are members of a Registered society, has also permitted the work to be carried on by them. Since the appeal is pending, this Court is not entering into any finding on merit and the above facts have been stated only to put the matter in the proper perspective. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the matter was posted for hearing, the appellate authority, i.e., the 3rd respondent who is holding the office of the 2nd respondent refused to permit a counsel to appear on behalf of the appellants. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that it is the submission of the 3rd respondent that the same was insisted upon only because there was no application for leave of the presiding officer, filed along with the appeal and the consent of the opposite parties is necessary for engaging a counsel. The learned Government Pleader also takes me through the provisions in sub-rule (3) of R. 25A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981 to substantiate the above contention. Immediately, it is to be noticed that the appeal as provided in R. 25A is one from the decision of a conciliation officer under S. 21(4) of the Act, In the present case the order is not one passed under S. 21 but is the refusal to grant registration passed under R. 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules. It is also pertinent that an order passed under R. 26A is appealable under R. 26C and the said provision does not contain any requirement of a consent from the opposite party nor a leave from the presiding officer for engaging a counsel.

(2.) In the circumstances, the reasons cited by the 3rd respondent through the learned Government Pleader for refusing appearance through counsel is found to be unsustainable. The appellants in Ext. P5 shall be permitted to appear through counsel. It is submitted that for appearance of the parties personally the matter has been posted on 7th and 8th. In the context of the findings of this Court none of the parties need appear before the 2nd respondent and appellants can be represented through counsel. The 2nd respondent, considering the expediency in the matter, shall take up the issue on 7th itself and shall, in any event, dispose of the matter within 22.10.2013 and pass orders thereon.