P.R Ramachandra Menon J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers.
(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give necessary police assistance to the petitioner for preventing the obstruction being caused by the respondents 3 to 6 Union and its workers to the loading and unloading works being carried on by the petitioner's own workers in Plot No 1 SEZB, Technocity Campus Thiruvananthapuram.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to prevent the respondents 3 to 6 Unions and its workers from creating any obstruction in front of Plot No 1 SEZB, Technocity campus Thiruvananthapuram.
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate police assistance to the petitioner for preventing the illegal and high handed action of respondents 3 to 6 Union and its workers.
And
(d) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to cut and remove the rubber trees from Plot No. 1 SEZB, Technocity campus Thiruvananthapuram, situated in survey Nos.8, 9, 10, 95 and 96 of Andoorkkonam Village, in a time bound manner and that the operation has to be completed on or before 31.05.2014. It is stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to engage all eligible persons to carry out the work; more so when it is a 'scheme covered area' and the registered workers having valid Card under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 are to be deployed. But, problem arose when there arose a dispute among the different Trade Unions in the area, as to the right of work. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue was considered by the concerned Assistant Labour Officer, who passed an order enabling the workers belonging to the respondents 5 and 6 to carry out the operation, which stands intercepted by the concerned Deputy Labour Officer holding that the ALO does not having the power to pass an order of adjudication.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submits that a meeting has been convened by the concerned DLO on 21.05.2014 for further steps.
4. During the course of proceedings the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submits that the workers belonging to the respondents 3 and 4 were pursuing the work in the area, but since the issue is pending consideration before the competent authority under the statue, they are ready and amenable to have the issue to be resolved for the time being, by equitable sharing of work among the workers, who are registered card holders belonging to the respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 Unions. The said suggestion is readily accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 as well.
5. In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to have the work carried out by deploying the workers having registration and valid cards under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, belonging to the members of the respondents 3 to 6 Unions on an equitable manner. The actual rights and liberties of the parties concerned will be finalized by the concerned DLO in accordance with the relevant provisions of the statue, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there is any threat to the law and order situation in connection with the work, the 2nd respondent shall give necessary/adequate/effective protection to the petitioner and the willing workers as above.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE DMR/-