BINFAB ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an industrial unit, faced with labour problems. After suffering the Ext.P5 adverse order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Ext.P5, in Malayalam, seems to direct the petitioner to engage workers from the Pool, constituted under the scheme.

(2.) In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the Standing Counsel for the respondent Board has submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Rule 26 C of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rule, 1981.

(3.) But the petitioner's counsel has strenuously contended that Ext.P5 negates Ext.P4 judgment of the Division Bench. She has also contended that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the additional 3rd respondent and until the appellate authority decides the appeal, this Court may stay all further proceedings under Ext.P5.