JOY THOMAS Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The first petitioner entered into an agreement with the second petitioner's son for slaughter tapping of about 600 old rubber trees. The second petitioner's son who is the owner of the property is abroad. The second petitioner is in possession and management of the property and he is authorized to take necessary action to protect the property. Ext.P1 is the agreement between the first and second petitioner. The second petitioner's son sold the rubber trees to the first petitioner and the first petitioner was to cut and remove the trees. Payment schedule is referred to. It is alleged that the first petitioner has paid the entire amount to the second petitioner. The first petitioner attempted to cut and remove the rubber trees. Respondents 5 to 11 and other workers belonging to Mangode area physically obstructed. The first petitioner was prepared to engage any worker who is prepared to do the work. The first respondent Labour Officer made several attempts to resolve the dispute. Petitioner made representation (Ext.P3). Respondents 2 and 3 have not so far taken any action and the petitioners have approached this Court. A counter affidavit is filed by the contesting respondents.

(3.) TODAY when the matter came up, it is submitted that the Officer has taken a decision as per which it is found that workers who are issued with identity cards by the A.L.O, Adoor only are entitled to work in Kalanjoor Panchayat. This would mean that the said workers are entitled going by the decision of the statutory authority. Respondents 5 to 10 would not be entitled to obstruct the cutting of trees by the petitioners. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: