IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13301 of 2009(G)
1. PRIJI KUMAR, S/O. DEVADASS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALODU.
3. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALODU POLICE
4. KURUPPUZHA PORIYAM HEAD LOAD
5. KURUPPUZHA PORIYAM HEAD LOAD WORKERS
6. VANCHVAM KONNAMOODU HEAD LOAD WORKERS
7. VANCHUVAM KONNAMMOODU HEAD LOAD
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :19/05/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 13301 OF 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Giri, J.
The petitioner purchased rubber trees from one Ratheesh
Kumar under Ext.P1 and then entered into Ext.P2 agreement for
cutting of the rubber trees. His grievance is that when he
started making arrangements to cut and remove the rubber
trees, the members of respondents 4 to 6 Unions intervened and
obstructed. Petitioner is willing to employ willing workers from
any Union for removing the rubber trees. He has not been
permitted to do so, inspite of the complaint lodged before the
police. Since they have not taken any steps, he has approached
this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that there was a dispute
among the Unions as regards the right to remove the rubber
trees. The learned Government Pleader on instruction, submits
the matter is pending before the District Labour Officer,
Thiruvananthapuram.
W.P(C).No.13301/2009 2
3. In the circumstances, the District Labour Officer is
impleaded as additional 7th respondent (existing 7th respondent is
directed to be deleted pursuant to the order in
I.A.No.5756/2009). The District Labour Officer shall decide the
eligibility of respondents 4 to 6, to sponsor headload workers, for
loading the rubber trees cut by the petitioner from the property
mentioned in Exts.P1 ad P2. This shall be done at the earliest,
preferably, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
The District Labour Officer shall specifically take note of
the fact that according to the petitioner he has no preference
and he is willing to employ any of the workers from respondents
4 to 6. If the members of respondents 4 to 6 are not willing to
work, then he must be permitted to employ workers of his
choice. This aspect shall be specifically taken note of by the
District Labour Officer and adequate provision must be made in
the decision to be taken by him. Once such decision is taken,
then the petitioner shall not be obstructed in going ahead with
W.P(C).No.13301/2009 3
the work which he has undertaken and the police shall render
adequate protection in that regard.
(V.GIRI , JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
ps