SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
The petitioner is undertaking construction of a building having a total area of 270 Sq.Metres spread over two floors. According to the petitioner, he is using ready mix concrete for the purpose of concreting the roof of the building. The allegation is that the workers of the local labour union are obstructing the use of the ready mix concrete, alleging that they are losing work. Therefore, they are demanding wages for the work that is lost to them. The petitioner has, therefore, sought for the issue of appropriate directions to respondents 1 to 3 to provide protection for proceeding with the construction work. Though, they have submitted Exhibit P3 petition, the 3rd respondent has not provided any assistance, it is alleged.
2. Advocate Sri V.V.Suresh appears for the 4th respondent as well as the 7th respondent-Panchayat. According to the counsel, the local workers are not demanding any money for the work they do not do. They are also not creating any obstruction. Their only demand is that at least a few of them may be engaged to do the construction work of the petitioner. According to the counsel, there are about 50 construction WPC.11567/14 -2-
workers in the area, who are claiming work from the petitioner. But the petitioner has been adamant and refusing to engage their services.
3. The Government Pleader on instructions submits that the workers have been demanding work from the petitioner. The situation has been created by the denial of the work demanded by them.
4. Though, notice has been served on all the respondents, respondents 5 and 6 have not appeared. The petitioner is carrying on his construction on the basis of Exhibit P2 No Objection Certificate issued by the 7th respondent. No objection is raised, regarding the construction by any of the parties. The limited dispute is that the workers of the local area are not being engaged to do the construction work. Though, we asked the learned counsel whether any law requires that the local workers should be given employment at the construction site of the petitioner, the answer is that there is no law that mandates such a course of action. Therefore, it follows that the workers have no right to obstruct the construction work. It is true, the counsel has submitted that the workers are not obstructing the work. If so, there is no impediment in the petitioner carrying on the work of construction of his building with the workers engaged by him. Since the 4th respondent or the local workers do not have any right to get precedence in the matter of employment with the petitioner, we are WPC.11567/14 -3-
not satisfied that they have any right to interfere with the construction work. In fact, their contention is that they are not causing any obstruction.
5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions.
(i) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to provide necessary protection to the petitioner for the purpose of carrying on the construction work of the building, if there is any obstruction from respondents 4 to 6 or their supporters.
(ii) The undertaking of the counsel for the 4th respondent that the local workers are not causing any obstruction is also recorded.
SD/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dsn SD/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE