M. Ramachandran, J.

The above three Original Petitions were jointly heard in view of the circumstances that they were inter connected. The brief facts covered by them are stated below.

2.O.P. No. 20338 of 2000 is seen filed on 18.07.2000 praying for a writ of mandamus for disposing of Ext. P2 appeal, claimed to have been filed on 15.07.2000 before the District Labour Officer, Palakkad. Ext. P2 appeal had been filed by the Secretary of a Union challenging the proceedings of the Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad purporting to be under S.12 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. It had been submitted in the appeal that for the past 30 years, only 15 workers were working in the Forest Depot, Walayar, and they were possessing cards issued by the first respondent, under R.26A(3) of the Rules, in 1992. They had been issued identity cards in Form C on 17.6.1999. Notwithstanding the above, on 14.7.2000, cards have been issued to others and they had not previously done work as Head Load Workers. The recipients were employed elsewhere and they were not entitled to get cards.

3. The Assistant Labour Officer and the Chairman of the Local Committee had been shown as respondents in the appeal.

4. In the Original Petition, the District Labour Officer and the Assistant Labour Officer were the respondents. But, subsequently, additional respondents 3 to 22 were impleaded, they being the 21 workers who were issued with the cards, and also the Chairman, Local Committee.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the party respondents, dated 18.8.2000, it had been averred that the Timber Depot had commenced at Walayar only in.November, 1999 and the additional respondents were working there ever since. They claimed that petitioners in the O.P. though registered workers were engaged in other works only. From the counter affidavit it has also come out that Ext. P2 appeal had been substituted by another appeal, dated 18.07.2000, that on that appeal, wherein the affected workmen had not been impleaded as parties, a hearing notice was issued by the District Labour Officer, on the next day proposing the hearing on 22.7.2000, and by order 'dated 23.07.2000, the proceedings of the Assistant Labour Officer, issuing cards to the 21 persons were cancelled. It was also averred that the Original petition filed by the affected persons challenging such orders had already been admitted and was posted for hearing.

6. From the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it is seen that Ext. P2 appeal had been withdrawn and Ext. P3 appeal dated 18.07.2000 was filed. It was stated that this was omitted to be stated in O.P. by mistake. It was also stated that after a hearing, the appeal was allowed and Ext. P4 is produced being the appellate order. Though there is reference to disobedience of interlocutory orders by the party respondents, since I am disposing the O.P. itself, I am not going into such disputes as at present nothing turns round on that.

7. Also though the averments in the reply affidavit that it was by a mistake that there was no mention of filing Ext. P3 appeal, it is evident that the above statement is a mistake. This is because the O.P. is seen signed on 16.7.2000, and Ext. P3, the new appeal, was signed and filed on 18.7.2000. Mr. P.N. Ravindran, counsel appearing for the party respondents, contended that there has been no amendment incorporated in the O.P., consequent to the substitution of Ext. P2 appeal, and it is therefore defective. But it assumes no significance now, as in view of Ext. P4 order, whereby the District Labour Officer had set aside the proceedings of the Assistant Labour Officer issuing the cards, the prayers in Ext. P2 or Ext. P3 appeal stand granted. Nothing more remains to be done in the Original Petition, since the prayer was for a disposal of the appeal filed.

8. The workmen, who were newly selected for conferment of cards and who had been impleaded in the earlier O.P. as additional respondents are the parties in O.P. No. 22660/2000.