JUDGMENT

The petitioners claim to be permanent workers of the

4^th respondent. They are aggrieved by the fact that their application for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially the Original Authority passed Exhibit P6 order, which was set aside by the Appellate Authority by Exhibit P8 order. It is submitted that, after remand, the Original Authority has again passed the very same order rejecting the application for registration on the ground that the grant of registration might affect the pool workers in the area.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent Board submits that the order of the Original Authority, which is presently impugned in the writ petition (namely Exhibit P10) would indicate that while one of the reasons stated is that the grant of registration would affect the pool workers in the area, there are other reasons also, for which the application for registration has been rejected. It is submitted that, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy against Exhibit P10 and no ground is