H.M. NAJEEM, BHARANAPARAMBIL Vs. HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioners are registered headload workers of Pool No.80 under the third respondent. On account of difference of opinion with their trade union leadership, they were denied employment with effect from 25/8/2012. Petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.23910/12 against the denial of employment and this Court had issued Ext.P3 order, directing the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioners to work as independent headload workers. However, when the petitioners reported for duty on 05/11/2012, they were obstructed and the second petitioner was assaulted and hospitalized. Petitioners submitted Exts.P6 before the third respondent and Ext.P7 before the fourth respondent. Alleging inaction on the party of respondents 3 and 4, the petitioners are before us.

(3.) WHEN the matter came up today, learned Government Pleader would submit that a crime has been registered against the third petitioner, wherein the allegation is that he has attacked one Shri A. Siddique, a worker on 12/11/2012.