JOSE THOMAS Vs. DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is engaged in small scale timber business. Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) are copies of agreements for purchase of timer according to the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner has engaged INTUC workers who are only recognized Trade union in Mylapra town. The Head Load Workers' Act is not still extended to that area. It is stated that when the petitioner started cutting of timber as per Exts.P1(a) agreement respondents 4 to 6 obstructed the petitioner and his workmen. They are claiming to be head load workers, but they have no registration or card. They are also claiming 'Attmari culi'. It is stated that petitioner has filed complaint (Exts.P2 and P3).

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4, 5, 6 and 8 inter alia stating as follows: Respondents 4, 5, 6 and 8 have been working as headload workers in the Mylapra area for the last two years. Some INTUC workers are also working there as headload workers. Respondent workers applied for the registration under Rule 26A (1) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent inspected the site and convinced that the respondent headload workers are the permanent headload workers in the area. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to Congress party and the INTUC workers are preventing 3rd respondent from issuing the registration card to the respondent workers and are creating problems in the locality. Dispute is now pending before the 3rd respondent. He has issued notice of conciliation to the petitioner and to all recognised trade unions, it is submitted (Ext.R6(b). It is stated that the petitioner and INTUC Union did not cooperate with the conciliation proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner suppressed the fact that the dispute is pending before the 3rd respondent. It is stated that respondent workers are not causing any obstruction to the functioning of petitioner's business.