IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1418 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JILLA CHUMATTU THOZHILALI CONGRESS INTUC(I), REG.NO.01-05-2007, KALLINGAL THRIPPADAPURAM UNIT, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR RAJACHANDRAN NAIR K.P., RESIDING AT KURUNGUDY HOUSE, THRIPPADAPURAM, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ALL KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (AITUC), REG.NO.01/11/88, KALINGAL THRIPPADAPURAM UNIT, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR RAMLAL V., RESIDING AT VILAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KALLINGAL, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JILLA GENERAL MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS), REG.NO.56/82, KALLINGAL-THRIPPADAPURAM UNIT, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR SHAJI S., RESIDING AT SINDHU BHAVAN, THRIPPADAPURAM, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM. 4. M/S.TECHNO PARK, KARIYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 5. MANAGER, LARSEN AND TOURBO LIMITED, TECHNO PARK PHASE 111 CONSTRUCTION SITE, KARIYALA-KOSAMUTTAM, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. BABU, CONVENOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, (CITU), ATTINKUZHI UNIT, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SELVARAJ,, CONVENOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, (CITU), MUKKOLACKAL UNIT, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. SHAJI, CONVENOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, (CITU), KULATHOOR UNIT, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R4 SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR R6-8 GOVT. PLEADER, SRIL ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C). NO: 1418 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J Petitioners are registered trade unions representing head load workers under the Kerala Head Load Workers' Act. 2. The case of the petitioners, is as follows: 6 registered head load workers, 2 each from the petitioners' unions have been granted registration. 18 persons belonging to the Head Load and General Workers, Union (CITU) Kallingal, Thrippadapuram unit have also been granted registration by the aforesaid authority. It is also stated that out of them only 16 are working now. The further case of the petitioners is that the area of operation is clearly stated in the identity cards. The location is within the boundary known as Kaiyela - Kosamuttam area. The 4th respondent as a part of its 3rd phase of development is going to start W.P. (C). NO: 1418 OF 2010 :2: construction of a large complex of buildings in Kaiyela - Kosamuttam area. The construction is undertaken by M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Further the case is that loading and unloading work was being done by 6 registered workers belonging to the petitioners' unions and the registered CITU workers of Kallingal - Thrippadapuram unit. But the respondents 6 to 8 started threatening the petitioners. It is also alleged that about 100 persons came armed with deadly weapons, encroached into the work site and tried to obstruct the petitioners and other registered head load workers from doing unloading work. The police did not take any action, it is alleged. Ext.P1 is the sample identity card of one among the 6 workers belonging to the petitioner union. Ext.P2 is a copy of rough sketch showing the area of operation of the petitioners. It is stated that in Ext.P2, the boundaries stated in Ext.P1 identity card have been marked as A, B, C and D. There is reference to a further incident on 13.1.2000. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 6 to 8 inter alia, stating as follows: The work site, where the new constructions are W.P. (C). NO: 1418 OF 2010 :3: going on was a paddy field and that the said location did not fall under the local limits of operation of head load workers who are having the identity cards issued under the Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981. It is also stated that employers in the areas are notified under the scheme are free to engage head load workers of their choice. It is their case that the location, where construction of 3rd phase of Techno Park were going, do not fall in the area of local limits alloted to the head load workers represented by respondents 6 to 8. It is adjacent to the area of operation of respondents 6 to 8. A reply affidavit has been filed denying the said allegations. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 and the learned Government pleader for the fourth respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that going by Ext.P1and also Ext.P2. petitioners' registered workers belonging to the petitioner's unions and CITU Workers' Union mentioned already are entitled to carry out loading and unloading work in the area. But respondents 6 to 8 are trespassing into the area alloted to W.P. (C). NO: 1418 OF 2010 :4: the petitioners. But still, the authorities have not interfered. 6. Learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 on the other hand reiterated the allegations in the counter. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the interim order, which is passed, may be continued as the work is to be carried out. 7. The petitioner has approached this court seeking police protection on the basis that they have exclusive right for the 6 members along with 16 members of the CITU unions to work in the area in question, i.e., on the basis of the area alloted to them. 8. There is no dispute that the authority is the District Labour Officer, after the process of conciliation of Assistant Labour Officer. Learned Government pleader would submit that the decision will be taken by District Labour Officer within 10 days from today. We feel that it is not appropriate to direct protection to the petitioners alone on the basis that they are exclusively entitled to work with reference to the area ear-marked, in view of the questions raised. 9. The District Labour Officer, Trivandrum is impleaded as additional 9th respondent suo motu, and the Government Pleader W.P. (C). NO: 1418 OF 2010 :5: appears for the 9th respondent. Writ petition is disposed of directing that a decision will be taken by the District Labour Officer, Trivandrum within 10 days in accordance with law. In the meantime, the interim order will continue. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/