Ext.P1resolution adopted by the Palakkad District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2. The petitioner is a trade union representing headload workers of Pool I A of Mannarkkad Grama Panchayat. The second respondent is the Secretary of yet another trade union which represents headload workers of Pool I B. Both the pools have 21 workers each. Till the decision impugned in this writ petition was taken, headload workers of Pool I A were doing the loading and unloading work on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays and headload workers of Pool I B were doing the loading and unloading work on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. In other words, all seven days of the week were working days. While matters stood thus, the Palakkad District Committee of the Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee' for short) that met on 28.4.2011 resolved with the dissent of 2 out of the 7 members present at the meeting that henceforth headload workers of Pool I A shall work on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, that headload workers of Pool I B shall work on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and that Sunday shall be a holiday. The leader of Pool I A thereupon submitted submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 20.5.2011 before the Chairman of the Committee requesting him to cancel the said decision. Copies of Ext.P2 representation were submitted to the District Labour Officer, Palakkad and the Assistant Labour Officer, Mannarkkad. Besides Ext.P2 representation submitted by the leader of Pool I A, the Secretary of the petitioner trade union submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 19.5.2011 before the Chairman of the Committee requesting him to cancel Ext.P1 decision. The instant writ petition was thereafter filed challenging Ext.P1. The main contention raised in the writ petition is that before the decision evidenced by Ext.P1 was taken, no notice was issued to the petitioner union and no discussion was held with the headload workers of the petitioner's union. Yet another contention raised is that the Committee has no power or authority to take the impugned decision.

3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Relying on sections 14(8) and 18 (8) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and paragraphs 5, 8, 10, 19 and 20 of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme' for short), it is contended that the Committee has the competence and authority to take the impugned decision. It is also contended that at the meeting in which the decision was taken, besides the Chairman of the Committee, six other members were also present, that out of the said six members, two represented employers and four represented trade unions and two of the trade union representatives dissented to the decision. It is also stated that such a decision was taken in view of Exts.R2(b), R2(c) and R2(d) representations submitted by the leader of Pool I B, that the petitioner did not participate in the discussion, that the leader of Pool I A stated that the workers are not in a position to take a decision, and therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned decision was taken without notice to or hearing the petitioner trade union or the workers of Pool I A. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that the Committee has the competence and authority to re-arrange the shift system of workers and that it was taking note of the fact that there was no work on Sundays and the workers of Pool I B were getting work only on Tuesdays and Thursdays that the Committee decided to distribute the work equitably among the two groups of workers.

4. I heard Sri.V.K.Mohammed Yousuf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Koshy George, learned standing counsel appearing for the first responden