JUDGMENT 1. The second respondent Assistant Labour Officer by Ext.P6 order granted registration to respondents 6 to 8 under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load workers Rules, 1981 (the Rules for short). The contention of respondents 6 to 8 is that they are the attached registered head load workers of the petitioner. The third respondent Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board preferred an appeal to the first respondent against Ext.P6 order under Rule 26 C of the Rules. The only question that arose for consideration before the first respondent under the circumstances was as to whether the registration granted to respondents 6 to 8 under Rule 26 A of the Rules is justified or not. 2. The first respondent has by Ext.P9 order did not interfere with Ext.P6 order of the second respondent granting registration to respondents 6 to 8. But the first respondent has in Ext.P9 order further held that the loading and unloading work in the premises of the petitioner has to be shared between respondents 6 to 8 and the workers belonging to the third respondent Welfare Fund Board. This I am afraid is beyond the scope of an appeal under Rule 26 C of the Rules wherein the legality or otherwise of the order granting registration under Rule 26 A alone falls for consideration. 3. I take note of the fact that neither the third respondent Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board nor the additional ninth respondent have challenged Ext.P9 order passed under Rule 26 C of the Rules and the same has become final as regards registration. I vacate the findings in Ext.P9 order in so far as it directs the work to be shared between respondents 6 to 8 and the workers of the third respondent Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board. That issue is left open to be decided under Section 19 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 if and when any motion is made for settlement of disputes. The Writ Petition is disposed of.