IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19930 of 2011(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- YESUDASAN A., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, LOURDE VILASAM, MATHRA P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN-691315. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 305. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 305. 4. KTUC (B), PATHANAPURAM REGION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY D.MAHIN. 5. KTUC (M), PATHANAPURAM REGION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 305, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ABDUL RAHMAN. svs ............2/-.... 6. INTUC (I), PATHANAPURAM REGION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 305, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY C.R.NAJEEB. 7. CITU, PATHANAPURAM REGION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 305, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PUSHPANGATHAN. 8. AITUC, PATHANAPURAM REGION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 305, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY D.SAHIB. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R-4 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV R5-6 BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.T.PRASAD SRI.SAIJU S. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 19930/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 08/12/2010 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND YOUSER SAHIB. P2: COPY OF THE UNDERSTANDING ARRIVED AT ON 22/06/2011 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/07/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/07/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4(a):COPIES OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO 8. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(a):COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO SRI.H.KABEER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT KTUC (M) UNION. R5(b):COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8. R5(c):COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8. R5(d):COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8. R5(e):COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.506/2011 ISSUED BY BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PUNALUR TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19930 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner had executed Ext.P1 agreement with one Sri.Yusuf Sahib, through which the work of slaughter tapping as well as cutting and removal of Rubber trees standing in the property of the said person was undertaken by the petitioner. As per the terms of Ext.P1, the petitioner had agreed to complete the work before 31.7.2011 and a default clause is seen incorporated for payment of compensation to the land owner in case of delay in completing the work within the said date, at a rate of Rs.2,000/- per day. 2. For execution of the work the petitioner had entered into Ext.P2 agreement with respondents 5 to 8 Trade Unions, in which the rate of wages to be paid is also settled. 2 W.P.(C) No.19930 of 2011 It is stated that, when the work is about to be commenced there arose dispute between the said unions and the 4th respondent union, who intervened claiming work for their members. When obstruction was caused, the petitioner had submitted Exts.P3 and Ext.P7 complaints before respondents 2 and 3. Since no action was taken to avert such physical obstruction and to afford protection for execution of the work, by engaging workers of the petitioner’s choice, this writ petition is filed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 8, it is stated that the members of those unions are registered head load workers regularly doing such works in the area in question. Copies of various agreements were produced in order to show that they were executing such works in the area in question. 4. The 4th respondent had filed counter affidavit contending that it is a newly formed trade union and it has got 18 members who are registered workers under the 3 W.P.(C) No.19930 of 2011 Head Load Workers Act engaged in loading and unloading works in the very same area. According to the 4th respondent it is only due to inter union rivalry that respondents 5 to 8 are not permitting members of the 4th respondent union to do the works of the petitioner. Since the petitioner had entered into Ext.P2 agreement only with respondents 5 to 8, it will amount to denial of work to the members of the 4th respondent union, is the contention. According to respondents 5 to 8, with respect to the dispute regarding right to do the work, a conciliation proceedings is pending before the Assistant Labour Officer, Punalur. 5. We notice that, eventhough the scheme formulated under the Head Load Workers Act is notified in the area in question, the functional operation of the scheme by forming pool system has not been introduced. We further notice that, only the loading of timber logs will come within the purview of the Head Load Workers Act, whereas the petitioner's contract is for cutting, sizing and removal of 4 W.P.(C) No.19930 of 2011 about 250 numbers of rubber trees. Because of the inter union rivalry among the respondents claiming the work, the petitioner could not be prevented from executing the work. We notice that as per terms of Ext.P1 agreement the petitioner is bound to complete the work within the stipulated time, otherwise he will be held liable for payment of compensation. Considering such circumstances we are of the opinion that, the petitioner need be permitted to execute the work by engaging workers of his own choice. Needless to say that, the petitioner will be at liberty to engage workers belonging to any of the respondent unions, in terms of Ext.P2 agreement. However, we make it clear that we are not deciding the rights and claims raised by the 4th respondent union regarding entitlement of its members to do the loading and unloading work in the area in question. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate police 5 W.P.(C) No.19930 of 2011 protection to the petitioner to execute the work of cutting and removal of rubber trees and its loading, which he had undertaken by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement, by engaging workers of his own choice. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/