IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 8911 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. JANATHA VIZHINJAM HARBOUR AREA HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS, UNION HARBOUR AREA, VIZHINJAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA SECRETARY, SRI. A. SASIKUMAR. 2. A.ARUNAMBARAM, NEAR TO KURISSADI, KOTTAPPURAM P.O., VIZHINJAM. BY ADV. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PORT OFFICER, VIZHINJAM PORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRASER, VIZHINJAM PORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, VIZHINJAM. R1 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8911/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G2 2898/06 DTD. 05/02/2007. EXT.P.2: COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 03/12/2008 THE R3 ISSUED TO UNION LEADERS. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 21/01/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.2387/2008 (H). EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE P.1. UNION. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. TO THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE P.2. TO THE R.1. ON 07/06/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY SRI. ANTONY, MEMBER OF P.1. UNION. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY N. BABU, MEMBER OF P.1. UNION. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE R.4. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE R.3. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE P.1. UNION. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 8911 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is a union of head load workers and the 2nd petitioner is a member of the 1st petitioner union. In respect of a dispute regarding right to work in the Vizhinjam port the 1st respondent passed Ext.P1 order under the Head Load Workers Act distributing the work available among 470 workers mentioned therein by turn. Petitioners grievance now is that on the ground that the workers represented by the 1st petitioner have changed their political allegiance, the workers represented by the 1st petitioner, whose names have been included in Ext.P1 order has been denied work. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing respondents 2 and 3 to implement Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent and to provide employment to all the employees who were included in the Annexure to Ext.P1 irrespective of their trade unions. ii. declare that the denial of employment to the members of the first petitioner's union on the ground that they have changed their unions is per se illegal, irregular and arbitrary. iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P6, P7 & P8 W.P(C) No. 8911 of 2009 -2- representations submitted by the 2nd petitioner requesting the first respondent to interfere with the denial of employment in Vizhinjam Port to the 2nd petitioner and similarly situated persons. iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the 4th respondent to take necessary; follow up action on Ext.P10 complaint and to see that the members of the first union are engaged for doing the loading and unloading work without any objections from the rival union.” 2. Now I.A. No. 12889 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Exts.P6, P7, P8, P9 and P11 representation. The petitioner submits that the writ petition itself may be disposed of with that direction. 3. I have heard the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6, P7, P8, P9 and P11 representations in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as all others concerned. Orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs