Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. The above three Original Petitions were jointly heard in view of the circumstances that they were inter connected. The brief facts covered by them are stated below. 2.O.P. No. 20338 of 2000 is seen filed on 18.07.2000 praying for a writ of mandamus for disposing of Ext. P2 appeal, claimed to have been filed on 15.07.2000 before the District Labour Officer, Palakkad. Ext. P2 appeal had been filed by the Secretary of a Union challenging the proceedings of the Assistant Labour Officer, Palakkad purporting to be under S.12 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. It had been submitted in the appeal that for the past 30 years, only 15 workers were working in the Forest Depot, Walayar, and they were possessing cards issued by the first respondent, under R.26A(3) of the Rules, in 1992. They had been issued identity cards in Form C on 17.6.1999. Notwithstanding the above, on 14.7.2000, cards have been issued to others and they had not previously done work as Head Load Workers. The recipients were employed elsewhere and they were not entitled to get cards. 3. The Assistant Labour Officer and the Chairman of the Local Committee had been shown as respondents in the appeal. 4. In the Original Petition, the District Labour Officer and the Assistant Labour Officer were the respondents. But, subsequently, additional respondents 3 to 22 were impleaded, they being the 21 workers who were issued with the cards, and also the Chairman, Local Committee. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the party respondents, dated 18.8.2000, it had been averred that the Timber Depot had commenced at Walayar only in.November, 1999 and the additional respondents were working there ever since. They claimed that petitioners in the O.P. though registered workers were engaged in other works only. From the counter affidavit it has also come out that Ext. P2 appeal had been substituted by another appeal, dated 18.07.2000, that on that appeal, wherein the affected workmen had not been impleaded as parties, a hearing notice was issued by the District Labour Officer, on the next day proposing the hearing on 22.7.2000, and by order 'dated 23.07.2000, the proceedings of the Assistant Labour Officer, issuing cards to the 21 persons were cancelled. It was also averred that the Original petition filed by the affected persons challenging such orders had already been admitted and was posted for hearing. It was also averred that the Original petition filed by the affected persons challenging such orders had already been admitted and was posted for hearing. 6. From the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it is seen that Ext. P2 appeal had been withdrawn and Ext. P3 appeal dated 18.07.2000 was filed. It was stated that this was omitted to be stated in O.P. by mistake. It was also stated that after a hearing, the appeal was allowed and Ext. P4 is produced being the appellate order. Though there is reference to disobedience of interlocutory orders by the party respondents, since I am disposing the O.P. itself, I am not going into such disputes as at present nothing turns round on that. 7. Also though the averments in the reply affidavit that it was by a mistake that there was no mention of filing Ext. P3 appeal, it is evident that the above statement is a mistake. This is because the O.P. is seen signed on 16.7.2000, and Ext. P3, the new appeal, was signed and filed on 18.7.2000. Mr. P.N. Ravindran, counsel appearing for the party respondents, contended that there has been no amendment incorporated in the O.P., consequent to the substitution of Ext. P2 appeal, and it is therefore defective. But it assumes no significance now, as in view of Ext. P4 order, whereby the District Labour Officer had set aside the proceedings of the Assistant Labour Officer issuing the cards, the prayers in Ext. P2 or Ext. P3 appeal stand granted. Nothing more remains to be done in the Original Petition, since the prayer was for a disposal of the appeal filed. 8. The workmen, who were newly selected for conferment of cards and who had been impleaded in the earlier O.P. as additional respondents are the parties in O.P. No. 22660/2000. They challenge the appellate order dated 23.7.2000, Ext. P4 in the earlier O.P. The said order is Ext. P5 in the writ petition filed by them. Mr. Ravindran submitted that neither Ext. P2 nor Ext. P3 in the earlier O.P. which has led to the impugned order was entertainable. Ext. P1 series are the new cards issued. Elaborating his point, he pointed out that though the appellant in Ext. P2/Ext. P3 were aware of the identity of the new card holder, they had not been impleaded as parties to the appeal proceedings. P2 nor Ext. P3 in the earlier O.P. which has led to the impugned order was entertainable. Ext. P1 series are the new cards issued. Elaborating his point, he pointed out that though the appellant in Ext. P2/Ext. P3 were aware of the identity of the new card holder, they had not been impleaded as parties to the appeal proceedings. They were admittedly the beneficiaries of the order of the Assistant Labour Officer, but when the proceedings were subjected to challenge, deliberately their names have been omitted from party array. The District Labour Officer, the appellate authority, according to him, had also overlooked the above irregularity, which went to the root of the issue. The appeal being incompetent, it should not have been entertained. In any view of the matter, as the appellate authority had completely overlooked the defect, Ext. P5 order, he submits, is hit by violation of principles of natural justice, and was liable to be set aside. 9. On the merits, counsel contended that the appeal Ext. P2/Ext. P3 was misconceived. He referred to the relevant Rules and pointed out that R.26A was very wide in that any head load worker had the right to submit an application for registration. On getting application, the Registering Authority was required to notify the employer/ contractor, and had to invite their objections. After considering the materials collected, he was obliged to register the name of the applicant, on his satisfaction that the applicant was a head load worker eligible for registration. An identity card was to follow. Thus what was contemplated was a simple, routine procedure. 10. Counsel pointed out that any person, referred to in R.26C who could challenge the decision styled as person aggrieved can only be the workman concerned, the contractor or employer and nobody else. A fellow worker had no right to challenge the proceedings of R.26A culminating in issue of cards. The appeal was not maintainable for this reason also. 11. On the merits, he submitted that the appellate authority had entered a finding without any justification. He had in a wholesale manner and without materials held that the workers, who were given cards were not employed in the industry. It is stated that he ought to have examined individual cases and come to independent conclusion. 11. On the merits, he submitted that the appellate authority had entered a finding without any justification. He had in a wholesale manner and without materials held that the workers, who were given cards were not employed in the industry. It is stated that he ought to have examined individual cases and come to independent conclusion. The reliance on the statement of the Depot Officer was absolutely illegal, and the settled rights were unsettled without hearing the proper and necessary parties. He also referred to the observation of the appellate authority that he cannot over rule the possibility that the Assistant Labour Officer might have been misled. Therefore, it was pleaded that there is every reason to set aside Ext. P5 order. 12. I will deal with the third Original Petition, only after entering to a finding in the two earlier O.Ps.1 find that O.P. No. 20338 of 2000 has become infructuous and as nothing remains in it, it is closed. With reference to O.P. No. 22660 of 2000,1 find that the petitioners are well founded in their contentions, as regards the maintainability, as also on the merits of the case. There is indeed a defect in Ext. P2/Ext. P3 appeals (O.P. No. 20338/2000).in that proper and necessary parties have not been impleaded. When the conferment of the cards were subjected to challenge, the concerned workers ought to have been made parties. But in Ext. P2, only the officers of the Labour Department were parties, and in Ext. P3, only Mr. Natarajan, President of the Union was made a party. There is no averment that the new card holders were members of the union. Nor is it stated that Natarajan represent the others. No reasons are forthcoming justifying the omission. As such I have to accept that the appeal was incompetent, and ought not have been entertained. 13. From the scheme of the Rules, it is evident that the right of the workers to get the registration is a statutory right. A registration confers enumerous benefits to an employee. A registration by itself does not directly impose any financial or other liability on the employer/ contractor. The prime requirement for registration is that he should be a head load worker. In fact the area were one works also has not been given any importance, the single relevant requirement is that he should be engaged in the head load work. A registration by itself does not directly impose any financial or other liability on the employer/ contractor. The prime requirement for registration is that he should be a head load worker. In fact the area were one works also has not been given any importance, the single relevant requirement is that he should be engaged in the head load work. It is for ascertaining the above, that views of employer are solicited. On conferment of the cards, as it does not affect third persons or fellow employees, they cannot at all be considered as aggrieved, and consequently they cannot maintain an appeal against the order. It cannot come with grace from the mouth of any workman that another workman cannot be issued a card. A monopoly is never envisaged, but a liberal approach alone is justified. I have to read down R.26C to this extent that the word aggrieved only refers to the employer, contractor, or the applicant and none else. Any other interpretation may not be in consonance with the underlying objective of the enactment. For this reason also, I hold that the appeal was not entertainable, and also incompetent. 14. On the merits also, according to me, the officer was not justified in reversing the finding of the District Labour Officer. Behind their back, the appellate authority held that some of them were not head load workers. The findings are unsustainable, as it has not been pin pointed as to who were those individuals, who did not attend to head load work. The appellants also had not let in any reliable materials for the appellate authority to reverse the order of the competent authority. It is well settled that only on adequate materials the decision of a statutory authority could be unsettled. The statement of the Depot Officer, referred to Ext. P5 was halfhearted and not convincing. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that though the Depot began functioning in November, 1999, due to paucity of workers and the rivalry among the claimants, the work of loading/ unloading is paralysed. It was pointed out that additional workers were attempted to be enrolled because of Government's initiative and suggestion. It is rather pitiable that for petty reasons and a stubborn attitude work in the Depot is paralysed, putting one and all to considerable disadvantage. 15. Accordingly I hold that Ext. P5 should not be permitted to come into operation. It was pointed out that additional workers were attempted to be enrolled because of Government's initiative and suggestion. It is rather pitiable that for petty reasons and a stubborn attitude work in the Depot is paralysed, putting one and all to considerable disadvantage. 15. Accordingly I hold that Ext. P5 should not be permitted to come into operation. It is set aside. The proceedings of the Assistant Labour Officer granting cards to the 21 workers cannot be faulted and the proceedings whereby the cards issued are declared as valid. It is evident that the claim of the petitioners in O.P. No. 20338/2000 that they have been working for over 30 years may not be true. The Depot is started only in November, 1999 and the cards have been issued on the basis that they have been working there from the inception. Employment of additional 21 workers, the Government Pleader submits, are absolutely necessary and he submits that as Workers were not available, in spite of notifying auction, there was not participation of buyers as the Government could not give contractors any assurance as to whether transportation is possible within any reasonable time. In such circumstance, the newly enrolled workers will have the right to get themselves registered in the scheme available there, as the area is notified as coming within the Scheme on making an application in that behalf. They are not liable to be subjected to any discrimination with the earlier set of workmen who stand covered under the Scheme, very recently. 16. As the right of the two group of workers have been upheld, I do not visualise any further trouble or inconvenience to the petitioners in the third O.P. (O.P. No. 249347 2000). They are contractors, who had successfully bid the auction held by the 5th respondent in the O.P. (depot Office, Timber Depot, Walayar). They refer to the disputes and obstructions that they had to face when attempts were made to load the timber in lorries. Ext. P1 is also produced by them showing that the District Labour Officer had directed the Depot Officer to stop the loading activities altogether. From the discussions at the Bar, it is evident that sufficient work for full engagement of 36 workers is there. Therefore, the quarrel cannot be on the availability of employment, it is presumable. Ext. P1 is also produced by them showing that the District Labour Officer had directed the Depot Officer to stop the loading activities altogether. From the discussions at the Bar, it is evident that sufficient work for full engagement of 36 workers is there. Therefore, the quarrel cannot be on the availability of employment, it is presumable. I hope that the workers would behave with due responsibility, as otherwise, it is likely that the contractors will be prepared and willing to avail of mechanical devises, for getting the work executed. This may be detrimental to the larger interest of workmen community and it is in their own interest that the contingency is averted. 17. It is only fair that the contractors similar to the petitioners in O.P. No. 24934/2000 also were entitled to get their work of loading done, through the two group of workmen, numbering 36. If there is any difficulty felt by the contractors and if complaints are lodged with the 4th or 5th respondents, they have to immediately take steps to get police assistance, so that successful bidders and persons similarly situated would be able to get the timber loaded and transported safely to the destination, either by the workmen attached to the Depot already, or engaging workers of their choice. In this context, I may extract paragraphs 8,9 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the Divisional Forest Officer dated 2.9.2000: "8. It is submitted that it is the responsibility of the Labour Department to settle loading disputes. If the dispute persists, it is likely that the bidders will boycot subsequent auctions which will cause heavy loss to the Government, by way of deterioration of the materials, which in turn will adversely affect the inflow of money to the Government treasury. Hence it will be ideal if the petitioners and other bidders are permitted to provide with adequate police protection to load and remove the materials by engaging workers of their own. 9. All possible efforts were made by 4th and 5th respondents herein for loading the materials in the lorry. Having collected the value of the materials it is the responsibility of the Government to provide facilities for the removal of the materials. 10. It is submitted that the number of workers under respondent No. 8 alone cannot complete the loading work with expedition. Having collected the value of the materials it is the responsibility of the Government to provide facilities for the removal of the materials. 10. It is submitted that the number of workers under respondent No. 8 alone cannot complete the loading work with expedition. Hence the petitioners should be enabled to employ sufficient labour to ensure proper out turn of work and complete the loading work expeditiously. Hence it is just and necessary that this Honourable Court directs respondents 2 & 3 to afford sufficient Police Protection to enable the loading work to be completed promptly by employing sufficient labour, if necessary by taking on workers including members of respondent No. 9 Union and others outside respondent No. 8 Union." The contractors will have the right to get the loading work done by mechanical devices as well, in the event of continued non co-operation of registered or unregistered workers. The Police is also hereby directed to give effective protection for the safety of the contractors, Government Officers and the men and materials employed there and the Depot as such, since bickerings over small items should not be permitted to reach proportions leading to stoppage of work. 19. It is submitted by the petitioners (Contractors) that the usual time given for lifting the auctioned items is six months. Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the time will be extended to the contractors, taking note of the extra ordinary situations which were prevailing in the Depot. On application, extension as above is to be granted and in any event it should not be less than three months from today. 20. The three Original Petitions are disposed of with the above directions. Parties will bear their respective costs.