K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a registered headload worker under Kerala Headload Workers Rules could object to the granting of the registration to another headload worker when he makes an application for registration under R.26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. Learned Single Judge took the view that a registered worker has no such right and he is not an aggrieved party to prefer an appeal under S.26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules against the decision to give registration and identity card. Learned Single Judge upheld the order of the Asst. Labour Officer, Palakkad and set aside the order dated 23.7.2000 of the District Labour Officer, Palakkad. Aggrieved by the same this appeal is preferred.

2. Short facts which are necessary for disposal of this case are as follows: Writ Petitioners are headload workers engaged in loading and unloading work in the Timber Sales Depot of the Forest Department at Walayar in Pudussery Panchayat in Palakkad District. They were granted registration under R.26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 by the Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad. They were also issued identity cards. Respondents 4 to 18 are also headload workers in the locality engaged in doing loading and unloading work at Walayar Forest Coupe. When registration and identity cards were issued to the petitioners, respondents 4 to 18 on 18.7.2000 filed appeal before the second respondent under R.26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules 1981 objecting the grant of registration claiming exclusive right to do loading and unloading work in the Timber Depot in the Walayar Coupe areas. On receipt of the appeal, second respondent issued notice dated 19.7.2000 to the first petitioner and third respondent in the Writ Petition. No notice was served on the petitioners 2 to 22 and they were not heard in the proceedings. Second respondent allowed the appeal on 23.7.2000 and ordered cancellation of the registration as well as identity cards issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the Writ Petition was preferred.

3. Learned Single Judge found that the order passed by the District Labour Officer cannot be sustained. The learned judge further ordered that the co-workers. who were already got registration under the Rules cannot challenge the registration and identity card issued to another set of workers. It was also ordered that they are not the aggrieved persons within the meaning of R.26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules so as to prefer appeal challenging the order passed under R.26A of the Rules. In other words, learned judge held that the appeal is incompetent.

4. Counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri. K. Ramakumar submitted that the learned single judge has committed an error by holding that the appellants are not aggrieved persons and the appeal preferred by them cannot be entertained. According to the counsel, the expression used in R.26C is "any person aggrieved". The word "any" has to be given a wider meaning and therefore a registered headload worker can always challenge the registration given to another worker. Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners Shri. P.N. Raveendran on the other hand submitted that a registered headload worker has no legal right to challenge the order passed by the authorities under the Headload Workers Act and the Rules.

5. The headload workers is a new species of workmen who appeared in the scene in the late 1960s. Emergence of these workmen took place at the first instance at bus stations and markets. But, this slowly spread to almost every village of the State during 1970s. The headload workers were organised under various trade unions affiliated to political parties. They were considered as a group of belligerent and quarrelsome group, always charging exorbitant wages even for carrying petty loads. They enforced the wage rates prescribed by themselves by monopolizing the right to

do loading and unloadin