JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner is concerned with Exhibit P3 order passed by the 1st respondent herein. Exhibit P3 is an order passed on an alleged conciliation attempted by the Conciliation Officer, intended at fixing uniform rates for loading and unloading work of gas cylinders within Alappuzha District. The order at Exhibit P3 is said to have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority at Exhibit P5. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Transporters Association, contends that they are the persons who have to ultimately bear the loading and unloading expenses as per the contract entered into with the Oil Companies. It is also submitted that there was no dispute as such pending and it was not incumbent upon the Assistant Labour Officer [ALO] or the District Labour Officer [DLO] to initiate a conciliation under Chapter VII of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 [for brevity "Act of 1978"], which relates to settlement of disputes alone. The transporting contractors, who are supplying Liquefied Petroleum Gas [for brevity "LPG"] cylinders to the dealers at their dealerships or godowns, had entered into agreements with the Trade Unions of the particular areas, agreeing on the rates to be paid; which is sought to be upset by an attempt made of unification of the rates, which, according to the petitioner, is not contemplated especially when there is no dispute as such existing in the particular area. On the pretext of unification, the binding settlements have been upset, is the contention raised by the petitioner-Association. 3. Though notices were issued to the Unions, none appear; but, however, certain workers got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 6 to 12. The Petroleum Distributors' Association has also got impleaded as additional respondent No. 13 and one of the dealers is impleaded as additional respondent No. 14. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for them also. 4. A reading of Exhibit P3 would indicate that there is no dispute as such raised by the individual Unions or the workers. None of the Unions, who are impleaded herein, despite notice, turned up before this Court alleging any dispute with respect to any of the areas within the District of Alappuzha. 4. A reading of Exhibit P3 would indicate that there is no dispute as such raised by the individual Unions or the workers. None of the Unions, who are impleaded herein, despite notice, turned up before this Court alleging any dispute with respect to any of the areas within the District of Alappuzha. The respondents 6 to 12, however through their Counsel, contend that for unloading of 306 full cylinders and loading an equal number of empty ones, the total amount earlier fixed was Rs.650/- and the prescription of Rs.950/- made by Exhibit P3 cannot at all be said to be arbitrary. However, this has to be viewed in the context of the specific contention taken by the petitioner with respect to the settlement of disputes, which is the power conferred under the Act of 1978. The ALO or the DLO cannot, by themselves, initiate a conciliation proceeding with the head load workers and the employers to upset the binding settlement arrived at between them; is the argument. 5. Section 21 of the Act of 1978 specifically speaks of a conciliation conference to be initiated by the ALO on there being raised a dispute, concerning inter alia of employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work; for settlement of a dispute. On such an event occurring, the report of such conference has to be sent to the Conciliation Officer, who is the DLO. The DLO could also take up conciliation proceedings on such report being received and either settle the terms as agreed to in the conciliation proceedings or take a decision thereon. The ground of jurisdictional infirmity insofar as there being no dispute raised, conferring power on the ALO or the DLO to invoke Section 21 and initiate conciliation, has to be accepted. There is no power conferred on the ALO or the DLO to direct uniform rates throughout the district without reference to the conditions existing in the particular area; especially in the context of the existence of binding settlements between the workmen and the employers of that area. 6. The dispute resolution under the Head load Workers Act has to be contoured on the same lines as an industrial adjudication; where the primacy of settlements for the period for which it is entered has to be respected by both sides. 6. The dispute resolution under the Head load Workers Act has to be contoured on the same lines as an industrial adjudication; where the primacy of settlements for the period for which it is entered has to be respected by both sides. Conciliation also is an exercise intended at settlement of disputes and the authority conferred with the powers to initiate proceedings for dispute resolution; cannot on a subjective satisfaction raise a dispute and then conciliate it. There can be a departure, only in so far as the conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, having failed, the Conciliation Officer can only submit a failure report to the Government; while under the Head Load Workers Act such officer can take a decision; which has to be informed by the principles of labour jurisprudence and which is also liable to be challenged as per the statute. The Conciliation Officer, under both enactments is a mediator, the role being necessitated on a dispute arising and not of a provocateur of disputes. 7. A status quo on affairs relating to employment, as to the terms agreed on, for a particular period; the period not being arbitrary and unrealistic, is the bedrock of industrial peace and good relations between the employer and employee in any establishment. This cannot be lightly disturbed on assumed disparities of, the wages not being uniform for a vast area. The conditions of life, the frequency of employment, cost of living index are a few of the factors which influence the determination of wages, in particular areas, which is the joint decision of the employer (here only in the status of a payer of remuneration for work discharged) and employee (on a specific engagement made) for that area. The period could also be breached, in the event of any unprecedented upheavals in economy, living conditions or like nature affecting life or commerce; but not otherwise. Not a ground of that nature arise in the present case. Though authorities under a welfare enactment; the official respondents cannot exceed the scope of the powers conferred under the statute. 8. The further contention raised by the petitioner is the lack of notice. Not a ground of that nature arise in the present case. Though authorities under a welfare enactment; the official respondents cannot exceed the scope of the powers conferred under the statute. 8. The further contention raised by the petitioner is the lack of notice. Though the report shows that many notices were issued in the context of the conciliation initiated by the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner's specific contention is that they were present on the first notice issued, posting the hearing on 17.03.2014 and on the next occasion, i.e., 02.05.2014 they could not attend since a conciliation was proposed by the Transport Commissioner on the very same date with respect to the terms of employment of the drivers whom they employ. 9. The issue of lack of notice as such need not be considered as of now, since this Court has found that Exhibit P3 is totally without jurisdiction. Exhibits P3 and P5, hence, would stand set aside. However, this will not interdict the respective Unions of an area from raising a dispute before the appropriate officer, i.e., the ALO, if there are no binding settlements available in the said area. Such conciliation could also be sought for on expiry of a binding settlement in a particular area or when there are factual upheavals as noticed herein above. With only the reservation of the right of the workers or Unions to raise a dispute at the appropriate time and context; the writ petition would stand allowed. Exhibits P3 and P5 are set aside. No costs.