IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13911 of 2008(F)
1. N.BINU, S/O. NESAN, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
6. SREEKANTAN NAIR,
7. HARIHARAN G.,
8. SHIBU, S/O. RAJAMANI,
9. ANIL,
10. SANTHOSH,
11. CHANDRAN,
12. SASI,
13. SOMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent :SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :02/06/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 13911 OF 2008-F
-----------------------------------------
Dated 2nd June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is running a hollow bricks unit. The said industrial
unit is surrounded by compound walls on all sides. He has engaged
permanent workmen to do the loading/unloading work in the said industrial
unit. While so, when the petitioner brought a load of cement to the unit, the
respondents 6 to 13, who are the local head load workers, claimed the right
to do the work and caused obstruction to the unloading of the goods.
Thereupon, the petitioner moved the police by filing Ext.P2 representation.
He also brought to the notice of the Assistant Labour Officer the above
dispute, by filing Ext.P4 representation. Since the police did not extend any
helping hand, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs.
2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted
that this is a labour dispute and therefore, the police did not interfere. The
respondents 8, 9 and 10 have filed a counter affidavit, denying the
WPC 13911/2008 2
allegations made by the petitioner against the workmen. According to them,
when a truck, full of cement bags, came to the petitioner’s unit, the
workmen requested that they may be permitted to the unloading work. They
did not cause any obstruction or held out any threat. Such allegations made
in the writ petition are totally unfounded. The writ petition has been filed
without any cause of action for the same, it is submitted.
3. We feel that the dispute between the petitioner and the workmen
represented by respondents 6 to 13 can be better resolved by the 5th
respondent A.L.O., who is authorised by the Kerala Headload Workers Act,
to conciliate in such disputes. If he cannot bring the parties to a settlement,
he can refer the matter to the District Labour Officer, who can take a final
decision in the matter and pass an award, if no settlement is possible. The
petitioner has already moved the 5th respondent, as mentioned earlier. In
view of the above position the 5th respondent is directed to complete the
proceedings within one month. If no settlement is arrived at, he shall,
thereafter, refer the dispute to the D.L.O. The said officer shall endeavour
to render a decision on it, if referred by the A.L.O., without further delay.
The parties will be bound by the order of the competent authority under the
Headload Workers Act, subject, of course, to their right to challenge the
same, if they feel aggrieved by it. The police shall extend help to enforce
WPC 13911/2008 3
the decision of the competent authority. Since the party respondents have
submitted that they have no intention,whatsoever, to cause obstruction to
the running of the petitioner’s unit, no further orders are required in this writ
petition.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
Nm/