JUDGMENT :

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The essential question projected in the appeal is of means of livelihood, which can only be eked out if there is sufficient work available to the head load workers, who are the contesting parties. Three Pools of workers constituted under the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (for short “the Scheme”) have agitated the cause for a number of years without a final resolution. The judgment in appeal affirmed the order of the Ernakulam District Committee of the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board which was challenged as Ext.P37 in one of writ petition from which the appeal arise. The writ petition seeks registration of all the establishments employing head load workers under the Scheme, in the area allotted to Pool 18. The Pool numbers are respectively 17, 27 and 18. The realignment of the area of work, and that now conceded to Pool 18 is under challenge by the other two Pools.

2. We have heard Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash for the appellants, (Pool Leaders of Pool No.'s 17 & 27) Sri.V.P.Prasad for the contesting respondent (Pool Leader of Pool No.18) and Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the