IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17494 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THOMAS MICHAEL, S/O.MICHAEL, SECRETARY,KERALA FOREST TIMBER DIPOT & PLANTATION WORKERS UNION (INTUC(1)),REG.NO.2/4988., AFFILIATION NO:9093,KAZHUTHURUTTY P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SRI.SAIJU S. SRI.C.SINOY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,THENMALA POLICE STATION, PUNALUR,KOLLAM. 3. SRI.R.PRADEP,CONVENOR CITU, KAZHUTHURUTTY UNIT,KAZHUTHURUTTY P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 4. SRI.ABDUL KHADER, CONVENOR AITUC, KAZHUTHURUTTY UNIT, KAZHUTHURUTTY P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 5. SRI.RAJAN, CONVENOR, B.M.S., KAZHUTHURUTTY UNIT, KAZHUTHURUTTY P.O.,PUNALUR, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 17494 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the Secretary of a union, has filed this writ petition complaining that respondents 3 to 5 who represent the other unions in the Kazhuthuruthy area in Pathanapuram Taluk, Kollam District were obstructing the grant of work to 16 workers who had left the CITU union and joined the petitioner's union. According to the petitioner, the said workers are also persons who have been issued with identity cards under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 and the Rules thereunder. Therefore, according to the petitioner, they are persons who are entitled to claim the work of loading and unloading in the area. Though the first respondent has intervened in the dispute and has issued Ext.P3 proceedings for settlement of the same, he could not proceed with the matter because respondents 3 to 5 did not respond to the notice issued by him. According to the petitioner, since respondents 3 to 5 were not co-operating with the first respondent, for evolving a settlement of the dispute, their workers are not able to get Wpc 17494/2010 2 any head load work in the area. It is also submitted that one of the unions being controlled by the ruling political party, the authorities are not exercising their powers under the Act to resolve the differences. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. Section 21 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act (` the Act' for short) makes provision for the settlement of disputes connected with the employment or non employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of work of any Head Load worker. The authority competent to work out a settlement is the first respondent. Section 21 confers power on the first respondent to initially try to settle the disputes by conciliation and where it is not possible to settle the dispute, he has got the power under Section 21(4) to decide the dispute. Since the first respondent is conferred with sufficient powers to resolve the differences in the present case also, I do not think it necessary to entertain this writ petition. I see from Ext.P3 that proceedings have already been initiated by the first respondent by initiating steps for conciliation. If respondents 3 to 5 are refusing to respond to such Wpc 17494/2010 3 efforts on the part of the first respondent, I have no doubt that the first respondent would proceed to take a decision on the issue in exercise of his power under Section 21(4) of the Act. In the circumstances, it is sufficient that the first respondent is directed to complete the proceedings without unnecessary delay. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to proceed with further action under Section 21 of the Act to settle the dispute and if that is not possible, to take a decision on the same. Such decision as indicated above, shall be taken in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and the proceedings shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk