IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24087 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUMESH BABU, S/O.BHAVADAS, AGED 32 YEARS, CHATHAMKULAM HOUSE, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD 678 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD 678 001. 3. MADHAVAN, THOOPUPALAM, KUNUPULLY, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD - 673 009. 4. SELVAN, UPPUPOTTA, KADUKKAMKUNNAM PO, PALAKKAD - 678 005. 5. MURUGADAS, KADUKKAMKUNNAM PO, PALAKKAD - 678 005. 6. SATHEESH, KORATHODI HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNAM PO,PALAKKAD - 678 005. 7. K.P.VELAYAN, KUTTIPULLY HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNAM PO, PALAKKAD - 678 005. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.24087 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is in the process of undertaking a construction work pursuant to Ext.P2 building permit. According to the petitioner, the premises were purchased by him as per Ext.P1. However, his construction activities are obstructed by respondents 3 to 7 who belong to two different trade unions claiming right to do the work of loading and unloading in the premises. The petitioner has already moved the first and second respondents seeking their interference for a resolution of the disputes. However, he complains that no action has been taken by the authorities in the matter. 2. Adv.Koshy George, who appears for the second respondent submits that the second respondent has already inspected the premises and has found that the area was not a scheme covered area and that the dispute was caused due to inter union rivalry. In the above circumstances, he submits that the first respondent is the proper authority to intervene in the matter and to resolve the disputes. In view Wpc 24087/2010 2 of the limited relief that I propose to grant, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the other respondents. 3. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to intervene in the dispute relating to the premises of the petitioner, highlighted in his complaint, evidenced herein by Ext.P3 and to take appropriate action thereon, in accordance with law for the purpose of resolving the disputes. Appropriate action as indicated above, shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing all interested parties. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk