ROY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was before this Court alleging obstruction of loading and unloading work by respondents 4 to 6 and claiming that though the petitioner is in a scheme covered area, there was no implementation by allotting a pool of workers. It was also submitted that there was a dispute between the head load workers, which led to disruption of law and order in the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted an interim order directing the petitioner to approach the pool from which the head load workers would be allotted.

(2.) While the writ petition was pending, it is submitted by the 7th respondent -Board, that under its aegis the issue was settled and now a pool has been alloted as Pool No.52, wherein respondents 4 and 5 are members. The petitioner has no objection in employing them, subject to employing his own employees on the petitioner's application for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 being permitted. The 6th respondent has not appeared. In such circumstance, the petitioner would be entitled to continue the loading and unloading work with the pool workers of Pool No.52 and if any obstruction is caused, the police will intervene to avert such obstruction. With the above observation and the reservation as to the own workers being registered, the writ petition would stand disposed of. No Costs.