IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 2163 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. GOPI.C., S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AJAYAVILASOM, CHELIKKUZHI P.O. 2. A.BHASKARAN, S/O.ADICHAN, PUTHENVILA HOUSE, ERATH NORTH, CHELIKKUZHI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PUNALUR. 4. INTUC HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, PATTAZHY VADAKKEKARA UNIT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT R.MADHAVAN NAIR, OLICKAL HOUSE, PANAYANAZHIKULAM, PATTAZHY P.O. 5. CITU HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, PATTAZHY VADAKKEKARA UNIT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SUDHAKARAN, KANJIRAMVILA THEKKETHIL, MALOOR P.O., PATTAZHY. 6. BMS HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION, PATTAZHY VADAKKEKARA UNIT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SETHULAL, LAL BHAVAN, CHELLIKUZHI P.O. NEDUMON - 691 556. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No. 2163/08 2 J U D G M E N T BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. THE WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. 06.10.08. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. dsn TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.2163 OF 2008-G -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioners submit, they are the registered headload workers of the Pattazhi Vadakkekara grama panchayat They were doing the headload work along with the other registered workmen in Ward Nos. 2 and 3 in the said panchayat. Now that they have shifted their union loyalties, they are not being permitted to do the work by respondents 4 to 6. The petitioners have moved the Assistant Labour Officer, 3rd respondent herein, by filing Ext.P3 representation highlighting their grievances. The said Officer has already called a conciliation conference on 1.10.2007 as evident from Ext.P4. But, no settlement could be arrived at as other unions did not co-operate. Against the physical obstruction from the part of respondents 4 to 6, which resulted in denial of employment to the petitioners, they have preferred Exts.P5 and P6 representations before the police officers. Thereafter this writ petition is filed seeking police protection to them to do the work in WPC.NO.2163/2008 . 2 their area. 2. We heard the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. Nobody appeared for respondents 4 to 6 though notice was served on them. We feel that this is not a dispute which can be decided by the police for rendering protection. It is also not proper for this court to decide on the claim of the petitioners to do work. But, the 3rd respondent can do that. If the petitioners produce a copy of this order before the 3rd respondent, he will issue notice to respondents 4 to 6 and take a decision on the claim of the petitioners to do work in the area. This the 3rd respondent shall do within one week from the date of production of a copy of this order. If the 3rd respondent finds that the petitioners are entitled to do the work and if anybody is causing obstruction to them, the police shall remove the obstruction. If any further clarification is necessary regarding turn of work etc., in that event the Assistant Labour Officer can issue further clarifications. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. WPC.NO.2163/2008 . 3 cl