Shaffique, J.

These two writ appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 8/10/2014 in WP(C) No. 4077/2014 and hence heard and decided together. WA No.342/2015 has been filed by the 3rd respondent and WA No.393/2015 has been filed by the 4th respondent. The parties are shown as referred to in the writ petition.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order dated 28/1/2014 of the District Labour Officer, Palakkad by which an appeal filed under Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Rules') has been allowed setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Labour Officer and cancelling the cards issued in the name of the petitioners 2 to 5.

3. The short facts involved in the writ petition would show that the first petitioner claims to be the Managing Partner of M/s. KPM Trade Centre, a partnership firm. They started a business as dealers and distributors of bricks, tiles, paint and other building materials. The establishment was registered in the year 2013 with the Commercial Tax Department. He filed an application for registering the persons engaged by him for loading and unloading work in the firm and accordingly, the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer had issued identity cards in favour of 5 persons and petitioners 2 to 5 are among them. Sri. Moosa, one of them expired. The 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging the issuance of the cards. In the said appeal, 2nd respondent issued an order dated 4/10/2013 directing stoppage of engagement of the persons already registered for loading and unloading work. Ext.P3 is the said order. Challenging Ext.P3, the first petitioner filed WP(C) No. 24457/13 wherein, this Court passed an interim order permitting the work to be done through registered workers. The writ petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders in the appeal within one month after affording opportunity to either side. It is stated that no decision was taken and in the meantime a contempt case came to be preferred. While so, on 28/1/2014, Ext.P5 order came to be passed by which the registration granted was cancelled. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the procedure enumerated in Rule 26A has not been followed. The main contention urged by the petitioners was that there was no procedural violation as contended, the establishment of the first petitioner is a new establishment and it can have its own employees registered under the Act.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd and 4th respondent supporting the stand taken in Ext.P5, for which a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner.

5. The learned Single Judge having considered the entire issue found that the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent was not maintainable as he is not an aggrieved person in terms of Rule 26C of the 1981 Rules. Further, on factual evaluation of the materials, it was found that there was no procedural infirmity on the part of the Assistant Labour Officer to have issued the cards and accordingly Ext.P5 appellate order was set aside.

6. Learned Senior counsel for appellant in WA No. 342/15, Sri. N. Dharmadan mainly argued on the finding of the learned Single Judge in regard to the maintainability of the appeal. Learned counsel for appellant in WA No. 393/2015, Sri.Thomas Abraham, argued on merits of the case in regard to the findings of the learned Single Judge while setting aside Ext.P5. Learned senior counsel Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan appeared on behalf of the petitioners, who are respondents in the above appeals who supported the findings of the learned single Judge.

7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the records, the first question to be considered is whether appeal filed by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent was maintainable or whether he was a person aggrieved, entitled to prefer an appeal. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgme