IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36824 of 2010(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KUNJU, AGED 67, S/O.PAILY, MENOTHUMALY HOUSE, THALAPUNCHA KARA, ASAMANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPUMPADY POLICE STATION, PIN-683545. 3. A.V.ELDHO, S/O.VARGHESE, ARACKAL HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, SECRETARY CITU UNIT,CHERUKUNNAM-683549. 4. M.K.ROY, S/O.KURIAKOSE, MATTAPPILLY HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, SECRETARY INTUC UNIT, CHERUKUNNAM-683549. 5. M.A.JOSEPH, MOLATH HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PRESIDENT HMS UNION, CHERUKUNNAM-683549. svs ........2/-... ...2... * ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED 6. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR. * ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU VIDE ORDER DATED 23/12/2010. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM R4,5 BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.D.SALIM SRI.PAUL C THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 36824/2010(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM LAKESHORE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. P2: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.3936949 ISSUED FROM ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE ON 29/10/2010. P3: COPY OF CAVEAT O.P FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 01/12/2010. P4: COPY OF PETITION DATED 07/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PTITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(a):COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13/01/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.23402/2009(J). R3(b):COPY OF LETTER NO.113/2009 DATED 16/07/2009 ISSUED BY CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR LOCAL COMMITTEE. R3(c):COPY OF LETTER DATED 10/09/2009 ISSUED BY SECRETARY KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD TO THE PRESIDENT, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (CITU), PERUMBAVOOR LOCAL COMMITTEE. R4(a):COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED TO 4TH RESPONDENT. R4(b):COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. R4(c):COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 14/09/2009 IN WPC NO.25727/2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.36824 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of appropriate direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to him to get the work of cutting and loading of rubber trees from his property performed peacefully. There is a dispute between the head load workers of the locality belonging to the CITU, INTUC and HMS. Consequently the petitioner's work cannot be undertaken. The interse dispute between respondents 3 to 5, the trade unions, is holding up the work. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to abide by any course. He wants 15 workers to complete the work. He is willing to take 5 workers from each group to get his work done. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suffers from malignancy and is terminally ill. He wants the work to be completed as expeditiously as possible. W.P(C) No.36824 of 2010 2 3. Respondents 3 to 5 are unable to arrive at any arrangement to get the work done. The 3rd respondent claims that the members of the CITU are entitled to get the entire work alloted to them. Respondents 4 and 5 assert that they are also entitled to get the work allotted to them. 4. Evidently there is a dispute which deserves to be resolved by resort to procedure under Section 21 of the Head Load Workers Act. The Bench which dealt with the matter earlier, impleaded the 6th respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer (A.L.O), Perumbavoor, and called for a report from the 6th respondent about the entitlement of the Head load workers to work. A report dated 30.12.2010 has been submitted to the Court, in which it is stated that only 19 workers belonging to the 3rd respondent are entitled to get the work allotted to them. 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 that under the scheme of Section 21 of the Act, the A.L.O is entitled only to attempt conciliation and submit a report to the conciliation officer, ie. the District Labour Officer (D.L.O). The District Labour Officer/Conciliation Officer is expected to conduct the conciliation and if the conciliation is not successful, decide the dispute between the parties. That W.P(C) No.36824 of 2010 3 decision of the conciliation officer would be appealable before an appellate authority. 6. This would evidently mean that we must direct the Assistant Labour Officer, the 6th respondent, to submit his report to the conciliation officer and direct the Conciliation Officer/D.L.O to continue with the steps under Section 21 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this would inevitably involve further delay. Considering the plight of the petitioner, some durable arrangement may be made taking into account the helpless position of the petitioner, he prays. 8. We did attempt to persuade respondents 3 to 5 to come to a settlement. We find that such settlement is found to be impossible. However, we take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that 15 of the 19 workers, who are reported by the A.L.O to be competent to be allotted the work, shall work in the property of the petitioner without receiving any remuneration. The remuneration payable can be deposited before the A.L.O who can submit his report to the conciliation officer and the conciliation officer, subject to the W.P(C) No.36824 of 2010 4 decision of the appellate authority can direct release of the amount to whosoever is entitled to get the work allotted to them. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the members of the 3rd respondent CITU shall work without receiving any remuneration on condition that the amount must be deposited before the A.L.O to be released to the person entitled to work after resolution of the dispute under Section 21 of the Act. 9. We find the said request to be reasonable. We do accept the same. Accordingly we issue the following directions: i) The petitioner can get the work done in his property by any 15 of the 19 persons referred to in the report dated 30.12.2010 submitted by the 6th respondent; ii) The remuneration payable shall be deposited with the 6th respondent - Assistant Labour Officer, Perumbavoor, who shall submit his report to the conciliation officer under Section 21 of the Act and the conciliation officer shall decide who among the members of respondents 3 to 5 are entitled to get the work done; iii) Without reference to the question as to who actually worked, the remuneration shall be released by the conciliation W.P(C) No.36824 of 2010 5 officer, subject of course to the decision of the appellate authority, to the persons who are found to be entitled to get the work allotted to them; iv) Respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that necessary police protection is afforded to get the work done in accordance with the above directions. v) The Assistant Labour Officer shall submit his report forthwith within 5 days to the conciliation officer, who shall pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the report from the Assistant Labour Officer; vi) The 3rd respondent shall issue a bill for the work done by the 15 workers, and the amount claimed in the bill shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Assistant Labour Officer. 10. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, allowed to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/