High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.Oceanus Dwellings (P) Ltd vs The Superintendent Of Police on 31 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
M/S.Oceanus Dwellings (P) Ltd vs The Superintendent Of Police on 31 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21151 of 2009(L)


1. M/S.OCEANUS DWELLINGS (P) LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. CITU, KURISHADI UNIT, REPRESENTED BY

4. AITUC, PULLANGIVILA UNIT,

5. INTUC, PULLANGIVILA UNIT,

6. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,

7. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.P.SHINOD

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :31/07/2009

 O R D E R
              P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.

                   -------------------------------

                    W.P.(C) No.21151 of 2009

                   -------------------------------

                  Dated this the 31st July, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

The petitioner is engaged in the business of

construction of flats, at present at Pangappara Village. He has

got his own permanent workmen. At the same time, he is

prepared to engage the required workers from the party

respondents for loading and unloading work. But his present

problem is that because of the inter rivalry union dispute, he is

not able to do the work.

2. We have issued notice and party respondents

have entered appearance. Third respondent has produced before

us a decision rendered by the 7th respondent, Assistant Labour

Officer, who is the competent authority under the Act, resolving

the dispute and certifying that third respondent’s unit is the

authorized unit for doing the loading and unloading work in the

W.P.(C) No.21151 of 2009

2

area in question. If so, the members of that union having

registration be engaged by the petitioner and no obstruction shall

be caused by other unions in the party array. The police will

give necessary protection to the petitioner in case of such

obstruction.

3. However, in case, the other party respondents

have got a case that the said decision is taken by the 7th

respondent without hearing them, or, if they are otherwise

aggrieved by such decision, it is open to them to prefer an appeal

or such other proceedings challenging the decision of the 7th

respondent. The present order will continue in force, unless the

order passed by the 7th respondent is altered or modified in any

other legal proceedings and thereafter subject to such decision,

that may be taken by that authority.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE.

nj.