JUDGMENT : The issues arising for consideration in these matters are common and as such, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and Exhibits are referred to herein, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.39668 of 2017. 2. The petitioners are trade unions of headload workers in Kozhikode District. The Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (the Corporation) is the agency of the State Government for implementing and monitoring the public distribution system under the National Food Security Act, 2013. In the light of the provisions contained in the said statute, it is the responsibility of the Corporation to take delivery of the food grains from the designated depots of the Central Government and distribute the same at the door steps of fair price shops in the State. The said process of distribution includes transportation of food grains from the depots of the Central Government to the Taluk level warehouses of the Corporation, unloading of food grains at the said warehouses, loading of the food grains in vehicles from the warehouses of the Corporation for further transportation to the fair price shops and unloading of the same again at the door steps of the fair price shops. The Corporation is getting the aforesaid works executed through contractors. As far as Kozhikode District is concerned, the Corporation is maintaining four warehouses at Kozhikode, Thamarassery, Quilandy and Vadakara. Since wages were not being paid for the loading and unloading works at the aforesaid locations at uniform rates, the Corporation experienced difficulties in assigning the works to the contractors at consistent rates. The Regional Director of the Corporation, in the circumstances, requested the second respondent to take appropriate steps to unify the wages payable for loading and unloading works at different places in the district. On receipt of the said request, the second respondent issued Ext.P5 order invoking the power under sub-section (4) of S.21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (the Act) by which it was ordered that Rs.14.95 per quintal would be the wages for the unloading works at the warehouses of the Corporation and Rs.15.80 and Rs.20.70 per quintal respectively would be the wages for the loading work from the warehouses of the Corporation and the unloading work at the fair price shops. 3. 3. In the meanwhile, the Corporation assigned the work of distribution of food grains in Kozhikode District for a period of one year to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1730 of 2018 and in terms of the agreement entered into by the Corporation with the petitioner in the said case, it has become the obligation of the petitioner in the said case to pay wages to the headload workers. Ext.P5 order was passed by the second respondent without affording the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1730 of 2018 an opportunity of hearing. He, therefore, challenged Ext.P5 order in appeal under sub-section (6) of S.21 of the Act on the ground that the same is illegal. The Corporation also challenged Ext.P5 order in appeal on the ground that the wages fixed in terms of Ext.P5 order is excessive. Likewise, petitioners 1 and 3 trade unions also challenged Ext.P5 order in appeal on the ground that the wages fixed therein are far below the prevailing rates. On 17.10.2017, the appellate authority stayed the operation of Ext.P5 order and directed that wages shall be paid to the workers pending disposal of the appeals in accordance with the rates prevailing prior to Ext.P5 order. Later, the appeals were heard and disposed of by the appellate authority as per Ext.P7 common order, affirming the wages fixed by the second respondent for the unloading work at the warehouses of the Corporation and re-fixing the wages fixed by the second respondent for the loading work at the warehouses of the Corporation and the unloading work at the fair price shops at Rs.13/- and Rs.10/- per quintal respectively. Though petitioners 1 and 3 also challenged Ext.P5 order in appeal, the prayer in the Writ Petition is only for restoration of Ext.P5 order on the ground that there is no reason for the appellate authority to reduce the rates fixed by the second respondent. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1730 of 2018 is that Ext.P5 order, in so far as the same was rendered without affording him an opportunity of hearing, is illegal as in terms of the agreement entered into by him with the Corporation, it is his obligation to pay wages to the headload workers. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1730 of 2018 is that Ext.P5 order, in so far as the same was rendered without affording him an opportunity of hearing, is illegal as in terms of the agreement entered into by him with the Corporation, it is his obligation to pay wages to the headload workers. According to the petitioner in the said case, there was no dispute at all as regards the wages payable to the loading and unloading workers in the district and as such, there was no occasion at all for the second respondent to fix uniform wages for the workers in the district. It is his case that since he has taken the distribution work of food grains in the district having regard to the prevailing rates in the respective areas, he would incur loss if he is compelled to pay wages to the workers in accordance with Exts.P5 and P7 orders. The petitioner in the said case, therefore, challenges both Ext.P5 and P7 orders. 5. The Corporation has filed a counter affidavit supporting Ext.P7 order. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Writ Petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation as also the learned Government Pleader. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the various materials produced in the Writ Petition, forcefully contended that the re-fixation of the wages made by the appellate authority is arbitrary and unreasonable. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1730 of 2018 attacked Exts.P5 and P7 orders on the ground that there was no dispute between the petitioners on one side and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1730 of 2018 on the other side as regards the wages payable to the headload workers for the second respondent to pass Ext.P5 order. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 order passed solely based on the request made by the third respondent, is vitiated for want of jurisdiction. 9. I do not propose to examine the correctness of the uniform wages fixed in terms of Exts.P5 and P7 orders, for, it is unnecessary to undertake the said adjudication for the disposal of these matters. 10. It is conceded by all concerned that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents in exercise of their powers under sub-sections (4) and (6) of S.21 of the Act. 10. It is conceded by all concerned that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents in exercise of their powers under sub-sections (4) and (6) of S.21 of the Act. S.21 of the Act dealing with settlement of disputes reads thus: “Settlement of disputes:–(1) Where a dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of work, of any headload worker exists or is apprehended, the Assistant Labour Officer, having jurisdiction may hold conciliation conferences for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute and, if such settlement is not arrived at, send a report of the dispute to the Conciliation Officer. (2) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), the Conciliation Officer may hold conciliation proceedings and shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, without delay investigate the same and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of promoting a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. (3) If a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer shall send a report thereof to the appellate authority. (4) If a settlement of the dispute or any of the matters in dispute is not arrived at, the Conciliation Officer shall take a decision on the dispute or, as the case may be, on the matters in respect of which no settlement has been arrived at and shall send a report of the dispute with a copy of his decision to the appellate authority. (5) The decision of the Conciliation Officer under sub-section (4) shall, subject to the decision of the appellate authority under sub-section (7), be binding on all parties to the dispute. (6) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Conciliation Officer under sub-section (4) may, within such time as may be prescribed, appeal to the appellate authority against such decision. (7) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (6), the appellate authority shall make such inquiries as it deems fit and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard decide the appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal. (7) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (6), the appellate authority shall make such inquiries as it deems fit and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard decide the appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the appellate authority shall not stay the operation of the decision of the Conciliation Officer pending its decision on the appeal except for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing.” It is evident from the extracted provision that it can be invoked only when a dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of work, of any headload worker exists or is apprehended. Even if it is taken that the second respondent apprehended a dispute connected with the terms of the employment of headload workers in the district, on receipt of the request made by the third respondent, such a dispute could be resolved only in the manner indicated in S.21 of the Act. Under sub-section (1) of S.21 of the Act, whenever a dispute of the nature referred to therein arises, the first step to be taken is to hold conciliation conferences by the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act having jurisdiction in the area. Of course, if a settlement is not arrived at in such conciliation conferences, the Conciliation Officer has to forward a report of the dispute to the Conciliation Officer appointed under S.3 of the Act. Under sub-s.(2) of S.21 of the Act, whenever a report is received by the Conciliation Officer under the Act under sub-section (1) of S.21 of the Act, it is obligatory for him to hold conciliation proceedings again and to investigate into the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and to do all such things possible for the purpose of bringing about a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the conciliation conferences provided for under sub-section (1) of S.21 of the Act were not held by the Conciliation Officer referred to therein and there was no failure report as provided for in the said provision. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the conciliation conferences provided for under sub-section (1) of S.21 of the Act were not held by the Conciliation Officer referred to therein and there was no failure report as provided for in the said provision. The learned Government Pleader conceded that the second respondent who is the Conciliation Officer appointed by the Government under S.3 of the Act for Kozhikode District has also not discharged the statutory obligations under sub-section (2) of S.21 of the Act. On the other hand, as noted above, on receipt of the request from the third respondent, the second respondent straight away made an adjudication as to the uniform wages payable to the headload workers in the district under sub-section (4) of S.21 of the Act. In terms of the provisions contained in S.21 of the Act, an adjudication of the dispute by the Conciliation Officer under sub-section (4) of S.21 of the Act is contemplated only if the dispute cannot be resolved otherwise than by the two rounds of conciliation provided for under sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.21 of the Act. The object behind the said statutory scheme is that conciliation being a more effective mechanism for resolving the disputes of the nature contemplated in the statute, the same has to be preferred over adjudication of disputes. In so far as it is found that the second respondent has passed Ext.P5 order without complying with the mandatory statutory provision contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.21 of the Act, Exts.P5 and P7 orders are unsustainable. In the result, these Writ Petitions are disposed of setting aside Exts.P5 and P7 orders, and directing the respondents to resolve the dispute between the petitioners on one side and the Corporation and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1730 of 2018 on the other side as regards the uniform wages payable to the headload workers engaged by the Corporation through intermediary contractors in Kozhikode District in the manner provided for under S.21 of the Act. Needless to say that till the dispute is resolved as directed above, wages shall be paid to the workers at the rates prevailing prior to Ext.P5 order. Needless to say that till the dispute is resolved as directed above, wages shall be paid to the workers at the rates prevailing prior to Ext.P5 order. It is made clear that if the dispute cannot be resolved by conciliation provided for under sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.21 of the Act, the dispute can certainly be adjudicated by the second respondent under sub-section (4) of S.21 of the Act.