IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14928 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- STANLEY.T., KALANATTUVILA , ARUMANA PO KANYAKUMARI , TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE SUB INSOECTOR OF POLICE. NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM 3. R.FRANCIS, UNIT CONVENER ZILLAH CHUMATTU,TOZGILALI CONGRESSINTUC) THRIPPALAVOOR UNIT, NEYYATTINKARA 4. RAJU,CONVENER(CITU),PONKIL MELE UNIT NEYYATTINKARA 5. SUKUMARAN NAIR, CONVENER(INTUC), PONKIL MELE UNIT,NEYATTINKARA. 6. PAUL RAJU, CONENER(BMS),PONKI MELE UNIT NEYYATTINKARA. 7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR FOR R4 TO 6 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R4 TO 6 SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE FOR R3 SRI.I.V. PRAMOD, GOVT. PLEADER FOR R1, R2 & R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 14928 OF 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DEED EXEUCTED BETWEEN WILSON AND GOPALAKRISHNAN DT.11.01.2006. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY GOPALAKRISHNAN TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03.03.2008(THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2 HEREWITH) EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIO PREFERRED TO THE RURAL SP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.69/2001 DT.12.2.01 OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER ADDRESSED TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.R4(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.498/02 DT.04.12.02. EXT.R4(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.165/08 DT.12.03.08. EXT.R4(D) : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY PREMA AND RECORDED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA DT. 11.03.08. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 14928 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a hapless timber merchant who is unable to remove timber purchased by him on account of the dispute between the different unions of head load workers in the area where the petitioner has to load timber. The inter-se rights of the workers of the area was decided in Ext.R4(c) order of the Assistant Labour Officer in proceedings under Section 21 of the Head Load Workers Act. The 3rd respondent would contend that he is challenging Ext.R4(c) in appeal before the District Labour Officer, therefore cannot now be implemented. I am of opinion that because of the rivalry between the various trade unions, the petitioner cannot be put to difficulty. He is prepared to employ any person among the workers entitled to do the same. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: Admittedly as per Ext.R4(c) the right to work in the area has been allotted to workers represented by respondents 4 to 6. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents 4 to 6, they have submitted the names of 15 head load workers who according to them are entitled to do the work in accordance with Ext.R4(c) order of the W.P.(C).No. 14928 OF 2008 2 Assistant Labour Officer. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to employ the said 15 persons mentioned in the additional counter affidavit dated 2.6.2008 filed by the respondents 4 to 6 and complete the work. The 3rd respondent or persons claiming under them shall not in any way obstruct the work so undertaken by the petitioner with the said 15 workers in any manner. If the 3rd respondent does obstruct such work it would be open to the petitioner to complain to respondents 2 and 7 who shall see that this judgment is strictly complied with. However I make it clear that this direction is only for the purpose of the petitioner to get his work completed and it would be open to the parties to agitate their contentions in the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent before the District Labour Officer. This judgment shall not be taken as a decision on the validity or otherwise of Ext.R4 (c) in any manner, which is left to be decided on merits by the appellate authority in the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-