Heard all parties.

2. This Writ appeal hads been placed before me pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed on 3-4-2002 for consideration. That order, in turn, was passed pursuant to a detailed judicial order passed on 19-3-02 by a Full Bench of which the Hon'ble Chief Justice was one of the parties.

3. A peresal of the said judicial order shows that based on the difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Division Bench which heard W.W.No.1175/96, the matter had been referred to the said Full Bench for consideration. The Full Bench, however, did not find it necessary to consider the case. It declined to answer the reference and directed the Registry to place records before the Hon'ble Chef Justice for reference to a third Judge in view of Sec.23 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act which provides that in case of disagreement between the two Judges of the Division Bench, the Chief Justices can refer it to a third Judge for opinion.

4. In view of the turn of events as aforementioned, It so happens that there is no specific question referred to me for decision. I have therefore to cull out from the differing Judjements of the two learned Judges of the Division Bench as to what exactly is the point of difference on which the opinion the third Judge is required before proceeding to answer the same.

5. It is unnecessary to state the facts as narrated in paras 1 and 2 of the two Judgements delivered by the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Division Bench. For the sake of convenience the authors will hereinafter be referred to as Senior Judeges and Junior Judge respectively.

6. I find, on a perusal of para-6 of the judgment of the Senior Judge that the view expressed by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgement in O.P.No.12524/95 viz., that the direction in earlier O.P.No.13026/93 stood in the way of maintainability of Ext.P2 was found incorrect by the Senior Judge it was found that the direction that consideration of the disputed question should be by appropriate authorities otherwise than in accordance eith the provisions contained under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulations of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 did not preclude the workers from agitating whatever rights they have under the Headload Workers Act (if they have any such rights) before the authorities under the Headload Workers Act.

7. In para-2 of the dissentinf judgement of the Junior Judge, the aforesaid aspect was gone into and it was held that the learned single Judge, in the impugned judgment, proceeded on the assumption that the direction in the earlier judgment in O.P.No.13026/95 was to approach authorities otherwise than under the Headlead Workers Act which was an error; that there was no such durection and the direction was only to approach the authorities except under the Kerala Headlead Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1983.

8. Ext. P2 is an order passed by the District Labour officer who is the Conciliation Officer appointed under Sec.21(4) of the Act which Section reads as follows:

"21 (4) If a settlement of the dispute or any of the matters in dispute is not arrived at the Conciliation Officer shall take a decision on the dispute or, as the case may be, on the matters in respect o fwhich no settlement hass been arrived at and shall send a report of the dispute with a copy of his decision to the appellate authority."

9. Irrespective of whether the Scheme is extended to an area or not, he will hence have jurdisdiction to decide the matter provided what is raised is a dispute.

10. Sec.2(h) of the Act defines dispute as follows:-

"2(h) dispute means ay dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and headload workers or between headload workers and headload workers, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of employment, of any headload workers.

Explanation: Where any employer discharges, dismisses; retren