AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopinath P, J
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in headloading of paddy and this work had been prevented on account
of obstruction from respondents 4 to 7. Respondents 4 and 5 are Trade Unions and respondents 6 and 7 are office bearers of respondents 4 and 5.
The additional 8th respondent is the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board, which has been impleaded as per order dated 4.3.2021 in I.A.No.1/2021
in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the additional 8th respondent submits that the area in question is not a scheme covered area. Therefore,
the question of registration etc., does not arise. The petitioner cannot be prevented from working to earn his livelihood. Respondents 4 to 7 cannot
insist that the work must be done only by the members of respondents 4 and 5.
When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 would submit that they are not causing any obstruction to
any work being done by the petitioner. He also submits that the matter had been settled by the Assistant Labour Officer. He also refers to the order
dated 20.5.2021, where this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions from the Assistant Labour Officer-2nd Circle,
Ettumanoor, Kottayam, the additional 9th respondent in the writ petition regarding such settlement. The learned Government Pleader seeks further
time to obtain instructions from the additional 9th respondent.
Post after two weeks. In the meanwhile, there will be an interim order directing the 1st respondent to ensure that the petitioner is not prevented from
working by respondents 4 to 7.