VISWANATHAN .C.P., Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are stated to be registered headload workers in a Scheme covered area notified as per the Kerala Headload Workers Scheme, 1983, have approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of the District Labour officer, which allowed an appeal preferred by respondents 5 to 8 against an order of the Assistant Labour officer that denied registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules to respondents 5 to 8, who were attached workers to the establishment run by the 4th respondent. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that Ext.P3 order was passed without hearing the petitioners, and their contention, that the grant of registration to respondents 5 to 8 would adversely affect their income from loading/unloading activities carried out by them as pool workers in various establishments that were registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules in the area in question. It is the further contention of counsel for the petitioner that the District Labour officer erred in not making sufficient enquiry with regard to the impact the registration granted to respondents 5 to 8 would have on the income earning capacity of the petitioners herein, as registered headload workers in the Scheme covered area.

(2.) A Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent and a statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent Board, wherein reference is made to the decided cases on the subject to contend that the petitioners have no role to play in an adjudication by the 1st and 2nd respondents, on an application by respondents 5 to 8 for registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules, especially in a situation where the said workers were claiming status as attached workers to the establishment run by the 4th respondent.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8.