IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13911 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ N.BINU, S/O. NESAN, AGED 36 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, B.B.ANAND HOLLOW BRICKS, RESIDING AT MAVUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUKAVU P.O., PEYAD (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL POLICE DISTRICT, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SREEKANTAN NAIR, CONVENOR, INTUC MALAYAM UNIT, RESIDING AT POTTAYIL, MALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. HARIHARAN G., WPC 13911/08 QUARRY CONTRACTOR AND CONVENOR, C.I.T.U., MALAYAM UNIT, PIDAYANKOTTUKONAM, VIZHAVOOR MALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. SHIBU, S/O. RAJAMANI, CONVENOR, BMS MALAYAM UNIT, VAZHATHOTTAVILA VEEDU, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. ANIL, PERUVILA VEEDU, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. SANTHOSH, FRUITS VENDOR, THIRUMALA AND RESIDING AT VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. CHANDRAN, EMPLOYED AS PICK UP AUTO DRIVER AND RESIDING AT VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. SASI, VAZHUTHOTTUVILA, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. SOMAN, ERIKKALAM KANNU, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR FOR R8 TO R10 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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/