1. The petitioner is the land-owner and the Ist respondent is the worker. The petitioner challenges Ext. P2 award of the Agricultural Tribunal, Alleppey, in A.D. No. 30 of 1976 whereby the Tribunal held that the 1st respondent was entitled to be employed by the petitioner in terms of S.7 (2) of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974 (the Act). The award is challenged for two reasons. The petitioner's counsel Shri P.C. Balakrishna Menon contends that the award is invalid for the reason that it was made outside the period limited for making an award in terms of S.22 (5). Counsel further contends that the award is vitiated by an error insofar as the Tribunal did not take into account the employer's contention that the worker was not entitled to be employed for the reason mentioned under S.7 (5) (d).

2. S.22 (5) reads:

"Where an agricultural dispute has been referred to an Agricultural Tribunal under sub-section (4), the Tribunal shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the proceedings, but not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the reference by the Tribunal, submit its award to the District Collecto