K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which reversed the order of the appellate authority and confirmed that of the original authority. The dispute is between the workers licensed under the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "sand mining employees") and those licensed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "headload workers"). The loading work, of the sand mined, in the area covered under the Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (for brevity "Headload Workers Act"), is the disputed question. The appellant is representing the sand mining employees and the respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 represent the headload workers.

2. There is no dispute that the workers who raised the conflicting claims are registered workers under two separate enactments. It is also not disputed that the mining of sand is to be carried out by the sand mining workers and the specified headload work, as indicated in the Headload Workers Act, in a scheme covered area, is to be carried out by the headload workers. Sand mining from rivers is conducted on country boats in which the mining workers go beyond the restricted limit as per the Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for brevity "Sand Act") and mine sand from the river bed and collect it in the country boats. The sand mined from the river bed and collected in the country boats are brought to the bank, specifically to the ghats on the river bank. The work, till then, undisputedly is to be carried on by the sand mining workers.

3. The dispute is with respect to the loading of the sand, so mined, into the lorries of the purchasers. The sand mining workers maintained that even that is to be carried on by them, since the price fixed on the basis of the load per country boat or per lorry is their responsibility and it is for them to ensure that the sand is properly loaded to the lorries. However, since customarily the headload workers were also involved in that work, the practice followed was to permit the headload workers to fill the baskets with sand from the country boats and lift it on to the head of the sand mining workers, who carries it to the lorries and unload it on to the lorries. For the loading work, i.e., specifically from the country boats to the lorries, the workers share the wages on a 50-50 basis. The headload workers, however, maintained that there is no such customary practise and the sand mining workers have only the licence to carry on the sand mining work and the minute it reaches the banks of the river, like any other goods, it is their exclusive right to load it on to the lorries.

4. When the dispute arose and the headload workers claimed the entire loading work of sand from the country boats to the lorries, the matter was referred to the concerned Labour Officer. Though negotiations were initiated by the Assistant Labour Officer and the Deputy Labour Officer, the dispute could not be resolved. Hence, the issue was considered under Section 21(4) of the Headload Workers Act. The District Labour Officer, by Exhibit P1, found that the work connected with the mining of sand from the river or backwaters to the 'Kadavu' has to be done by the sand mining workers and the work of loading sand from the 'Kadavu' to the vehicles is to be done by the headload workers. The appellant herein, being aggrieved by the decision, approached the appellate authority under the statute. Both the parties were heard by the appellate authority and an order was passed, evidenced by Exhibit P4, which was impugned in the writ petition.

5. The appellate authority found that the contention of the sand mining workers regarding the loading and unloading work from the country boats to the vehicles was the practise validly carried on in the area. A report was also called for from the Assistant Labour Of