P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. Appellants are strangers to the writ petition, which was finalised by the learned single Judge setting aside the orders passed by the Asst. Labour Officer and the District Labour Officer (original authority and appellate authority respectively), whereby a direction was also given to grant registration to the attached workers of the writ petitioners in terms of Rule 26A of the Kerala Head-load Workers Rules. This appeal has been preferred after getting the leave of this Court as per order dated 28.07.2016 in I.A. No. 887/2016, pointing out that the appellants were necessary parties to the proceedings and that having denied an opportunity of hearing, much loss, prejudice and hardships have been caused to them, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court.

2. The sequence of events revealed from the proceedings is that the first petitioner, who is the Managing partner of the partnership firm by name "Peekay Traders" sought to get registration of the attached workers for carrying out the incidental loading and unloading operations being carried out in the establishment. The said establishment was a newly set up unit, based on Ext.P1 partnership deed dated 31.08.2015, for doing retail business in Cement, Iron, Steel, Tiles and so on. Registration under the relevant provisions of the KVAT Act and Rules was obtained as borne by Ext.P2 certificate. Similarly, the establishment has also got the necessary D&O licence from the concerned Local authority, as evident from Ext.P3.

3. In the course of further steps for getting the petitioners 2 to 4, (who are the attached workers of the establishment) registered under the relevant provisions of the above Act/Rules, particularly the area being a 'scheme-covered area' Exts.P4 to P6 applications were submitted by the workers concerned in Form No. IX before the 6th respondent herein. Since the said applications dated 28.12.2015 were not acted upon, the first petitioner was constrained to move this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 655 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment, directing the sole respondent therein, who is the 6th respondent in this appeal, to consider and pass appropriate orders in the said applications. Pursuant to the said verdict, the 6th respondent inspected the shop of the first petitioner and recorded the statement, which was virtually to the effect that he did not have any objection to register the names of the other petitioners, as the head-load workers attached to the establishment. Despite this, the applications were rejected by the 6th respondent as per Ext.P8 order dated 06.02.2016, merely holding that registration, if given to the concerned applicants, will adversely affect the rights and interests of the existing registered head-load workers in the area, as to the extent of employment available to them.

4. Met with the situation, the said order was sought to be challenged by filing a statutory appeal before the first respondent in the writ petition (who is the 5th respondent herein), but without considering the actual facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law in the proper perspective, the appeal was dismissed confirming the order passed by the registering authority vide Ext.P9 order dated 09.02.2016. This made the writ petitioners to approach this Court challenging Exts.P8 and P9 on various grounds. The concerned Welfare Fund Board came to be impleaded as an Addl. Respondent in the party array. After hearing both the sides, a learned Single Judge observed that there was absolutely no rhyme or reason to have rejected the applications and that the applicants had every right to get themselves registered as head-load workers of the first petitioner. The learned single Judge also observed that the establishment being a new one, the question of maintenance of relevant registers, (which was stated as lacking as held by the original authority and the appellate authority) was of no consequence,