IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4435 of 2009(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. M. MOHAMMED ALI, MANGADAN HOUSE, PALLASSERY.P.O, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. M. ANIL, KUNDUKARATHODY, ETHRIPANAM, MANNARKKAD.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. M. JAYAPRAKASHAN, MALAPPURAM HOUSE, MEZHUKUMPARA, THENKARA.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.T.C.SURESH MENON, MR.JIBU P THOMAS, MR.A.R.NIMOD, MR.C.A.ANOOP. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 3. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. MANI, KURAVANCODE VEEDU, KOLPADAM, THENKARA.P.O PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. K. RAJAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, KURAVANCODE VEEDU, KOLPADAM, THENKARA.P.O. Kss ..2/- ..2.... WPC.NO.4435/2009 C *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED: R5. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN - IN - CHARGE, PALAKKAD LOCAL COMMITTEE, T.B.ROAD, M.A. COMPLEX, PALAKKAD. (*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 8/09/2009 IN I.A.NO.10268/2009) R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 &R4 BY ADV. MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN ADDL. R5 BY ADV. MR.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 4435 OF 2009 C ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners belong to the 6th Pool of Headload Workers in Althara of Mannarkkad town. Respondents 3 and 4 belong to the 5th Pool. Both the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 claim that they are entitled to work in the construction of a shopping complex which is constructed in the place of an old lodge by name Kallady Lodge. The dispute between the two pools were settled as per Ext.P2 proceedings by the District Labour Officer, Palakkad. 2. As per the terms of the settlement, the agreement was to continue only till completion of the shopping complex that was under construction. After completion of the construction of the shopping complex, the workers of the respective pools have been directed to attend to headload work only within the limits of the areas allotted to them. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the construction work of the shopping complex is already completed. The above assertion was disputed by counsel for respondents 3 and 4. In the above circumstances, the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board was impleaded as the additional fifth respondent in the writ WPC 4435/2009 2 petition. The counsel for the additional fifth respondent on instructions has submitted that the construction work of the shopping complex is not yet over and that the construction work was still in progress. 4. In view of the fact that the construction work of the shopping complex is still continuing the sharing of work has to continue in accordance with the terms of Ext.P2. The above being the factual situation, no relief as sought for in the writ petition can be granted. 5. In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of recording the statement of the counsel for the additional fifth respondent that the construction work of the shopping complex is still continuing and therefore, the sharing of work shall continue in accordance with Ext.P2 till the construction work is completed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 4435/2009 3 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: