SAMYUKTHA THOZHILALI UNION Vs. OMANA JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Petition was disposed of on 29/11/2000. According to the petitioner in the review petition he had entered appearance on receiving notice in the Original Petition on 24/11/2000 by filing vakalath and counter affidavit. But he could not appear when the case was taken up and disposed of on 29/11/2000, as his name did not appear in the cause list. Therefore, the review petitioner did not have any opportunity. The judgment deprives the employment chances of the members of the review petitioner. The judgment was rendered without hearing the review petitioner. Therefore it has to be reviewed.

(2.) I verified the records and found that though vakalath and counter affidavit have been filed by the review petitioner, the second respondent in the Original Petition on 24/11/2000, his appearance was not noted in the cause list thereby disabling the counsel to be present on 29/11/2000 when the case was heard and disposed of. Therefore, the review petitioner has to be allowed. Accordingly, the Original petition was heard afresh.

(3.) The petitioner is a small scale industrial unit registered as per Ext. P1 manufacturing hollow bricks. As per the averment in para 2, there is lot of loading and unloading activities in the business concern of the petitioner. So, four persons have been "employed as permanent headload workers". Therefore, the petitioner has got permanent workmen and they are being employed for the loading and unloading operations in the unit. The members of second respondent union are demanding employment replacing the permanent workmen. They are causing obstruction as the petitioner is unable to concede to their demand. Therefore, the petitioner seeks police protection to avert their obstruction.