JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P6 order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-Appellate Authority, Ernakulam under Section 21(7) of the Headload Workers Act, 1978 (‘Act, 1978 for brevity), whereby the boundaries of pool Nos. 31 and 35 situated near Kanjiramattom at Gamma Junction and the junction at Amballoor, Ernakulam were demarcated. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a headload worker and is a leader of Pool No. 35, which is operating in Kanjiramattom locality. There is yet another pool No. 31 in the same locality, which according to the petitioner, is within the area covered by Pool No. 35, of which the 5th respondent namely S.K. Surendran is the pool leader, in order to carry on the unloading work of construction materials brought to the construction sites. According to the petitioner, there was no quarrel or dispute between the workers of pool Nos. 31 and 35 as the work of the pools were clearly demarcated. However, on 11.05.2013, the workers of pool No. 31, under the leadership of the 5th respondent, physically obstructed the unloading work of the tiles in the godown of NSS Building, where the workers of pool No. 35 are entitled to work. 3. Thereupon, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Officer, who convened conciliation conferences on 11.06.2013 and 17.06.2013. However, no settlement could be arrived at and therefore, a failure report was sent to the District Labour Officer, who did not take any measures to proceed with the matter and thereupon, a direction was secured by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16977 of 2013 to pass orders on the pending proceedings. Accordingly, the District Labour Officer-second respondent, has passed Ext. P1 order, which according to the petitioner, clearly demarcated the area allotted to pool Nos. 31 and 35. Aggrieved by Ext. P1 order of the District Labour Officer, 5th respondent, who is the leader of pool No. 31, approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the first respondent, and according to the petitioner, even before preferring an appeal, a stay of Ext. P1 was granted by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 25736 of 2013, which was disposed of as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 05.11.2013 directing the appellate authority to dispose of Ext. P1 was granted by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 25736 of 2013, which was disposed of as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 05.11.2013 directing the appellate authority to dispose of Ext. P2 appeal pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and further directed that till a decision is taken, Ext. P1 order passed by the District Labour Officer would be in force for allotment of work. 5. The main contention advanced by the petitioner is that none of the aspects put forth by the petitioner before the Deputy Labour Commissioner was taken note of and therefore, Ext. P6 order is discriminatory and arbitrary and is liable to be interfered with. So also, it is contended that the issue with respect to the dispute by and between pool Nos. 31 and 35 was settled by the District Labour Officer as per Ext. P1 order dated 24.09.2013 after reassessing the area of work of the headload workers under pool Nos. 31 and 35. 6. Therefore it is contented that, the appellate authority has interfered with the said order without understanding the true factual circumstances and taking into account the documents produced by the petitioner at the time of hearing to prove that the headload workers of pool No. 35 have been doing loading and unloading work in the Keecheri Service Co-operative Bank No. 668, Galaxy Tiles, ARD 212, Vembanad Rubbers, Godown of Warehousing Corporation etc. 7. In that view of the matter, according to the petitioner , the order passed by the appellate authority is against the factual circumstances available on record and the said aspect was never disputed by the 5th respondent . Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has also produced Ext. P5 series of documents to show that headload works of the above establishment have been carried out by pool No. 35 and that the amounts were paid by the respective establishments to the workers of pool No. 35. 8. To put it short the contention advanced by the petitioner is that Ext. P6 order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner cannot stand the test of law, and since it is passed against the actual circumstances, it becomes arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 9. 8. To put it short the contention advanced by the petitioner is that Ext. P6 order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner cannot stand the test of law, and since it is passed against the actual circumstances, it becomes arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 9. On the other hand, the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board, Ernakulam and its Sub Officer, who are respondents 3 and 4, have filed a joint counter affidavit stating that the decision taken by the appellate authority is in accordance with law and the pool workers in pool No. 31 are entitled to do the loading work in the area towards the north of Amballoor junction towards the east Trippakkudam Temple, the west Chirakkal bridge and the east railway station. 10. It is also pointed out that the pool workers of Pool No. 31 are eligible to carry out the loading and unloading work in the shop and the commercial establishments outside the area of pool No. 31, apart from the general construction work. It is further submitted that now the work arrangement is going on as per Ext. P6 order of the appellate authority. 11. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also stating that the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 and many of the contentions raised are against the facts, misleading and incorrect. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Molly Jacob and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 13. The sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext. P6 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who is the appellate authority under Section 21(7) of the Act, 1978. 14. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the District Labour Officer, has passed Ext. P1 order after taking into account the entire factual circumstances and after hearing the respective parties. It is true, in accordance with the contentions put forth by the parties, various aspects were taken into account. However, ultimately, it was held that there was no clarity with respect to the area of workers of pool No. 35 and the workers of pool Nos. It is true, in accordance with the contentions put forth by the parties, various aspects were taken into account. However, ultimately, it was held that there was no clarity with respect to the area of workers of pool No. 35 and the workers of pool Nos. 31 and 35 were carrying out the unloading work, irrespective of the demarcation of the boundaries. 15. Therefore, the District Labour Officer was basically of the opinion that there was mistake on the part of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board in fixing the boundary of pool Nos. 31 and 35. Anyhow, the District Labour Officer has taken Ext. P1 decision on the basis of an agreement executed by and between the workers of Pool Nos. 31 and 35 and the owner of the Galaxy Tiles and taking into account two communications of the Headload workers Welfare Board dated 13.05.2013 and 06.09.2013 bearing Nos. N-34/13-14 and W/34/13 respectively. 16. On an overall appreciation of the order passed by the District Labour Officer, it is clear that the District Labour Officer has absolutely relied upon the aforesaid letters in order to demarcate the boundaries between pool Nos. 31 and 35 without understanding the actual area of work to be allotted to the workers of the subpools. However, as per Ext. P6 order, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has undertaken a threadbare enquiry also by conducting a site inspection, heard the parties, and thereafter demarcated the boundaries so as to avoid any confusion or complex situations . 17. The contention put forth by the petitioner that the pool workers of pool No 35 carried out the works in the area now earmarked to the workers of pool No. 31 at some point of time cannot be a ground or reason to hold so while adjudicating a dispute that arose by and between the workers of Pool Nos. 31 and 35. As I have pointed out earlier, the District Labour Officer has not ventured to identify the exact situation and to arrive at a finding in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1978, especially Section 21 thereto. 18. But in my considered opinion, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, who is the appellate authority, has conducted a field survey and identified the exact dispute that was pending by and between the workers of pool Nos. 31 and 35. It is quite clear and evident from Ext. 18. But in my considered opinion, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, who is the appellate authority, has conducted a field survey and identified the exact dispute that was pending by and between the workers of pool Nos. 31 and 35. It is quite clear and evident from Ext. P6 that the findings are rendered by the appellate authority taking into account various factual circumstances, especially the statement of the Deputy Labour Officer, who has visited the sites in question and has reported the factual circumstances available on the field. Merely because some work in the area belonging to the workers of pool No. 31 was carried out by the workers of pool No. 35, that will not enure to the benefit of workers of pool No. 35, since from Ext. P1 order passed by the District Labour Officer itself, it is clear that it was on the basis of some agreement and temporary arrangements the work was carried out in that manner, but it shall not stand in the way of the authority while exercising the power under the Act, 1978, when it was called upon to decide an actual dispute pending by and between the workers of pool Nos. 31 and 35. 19. Thus, taking into account the entire pros and cons and the facts and figures, I am of the considered opinion that there is no arbitrariness or any other legal infirmities, justifying interference of this Court in Ext P6 order, exercising the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the decision was taken by the statutory appellate authority after providing full opportunity to the parties and deciphering various factual circumstances, including conducting field study to sort out the dispute finally . Needless to say, the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.