KOLLAM JILLA CHUMATTU THOZHILALI UNION, JETTY ROAD, KOLLAM v. WPC.NO.3744/2010 P
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 04 Feb 2010
- Bench
- K SURENDRA MOHAN
Provisions considered
Judgment
...2...WPC.NO.3744/2010 P 8. UDHAYABHANU, SECRETARY, AITUC, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 9. V.S.JOHNSON, GENERAL SECRETARY, KOLLAM BLOCK LOADING AND UNLOADING WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC),TILLERY, KOLLAM. 10. YAHIYA KOYA, CONVENER(INTUC(S)), TILLERY, KOLLAM. 11. K.VIJAYAN, SECRETARY, HMS, DEPOT PURAYIDOM, CONTONMENT, KOLLAM. 12. SEBASTIAN, SECRETARY, KTUC, DEPOT PURAYIDOM, CONTONMENT, KOLLAM. 13. T.S.A.RAZAK, SECRETARY, STU, LEAGUE HOUSE, KOLLAM-1. 14. ABDUL AZEEZ, SECRETARY, FCI WORKERS UNION, KOLLAM. 15. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERANAKULAM. R1,R4 & R5 BY GOVERNEMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R2&R3 BY ADV MR. MILLU DANDAPANI,SC,KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPLIESCORPN. R15 BY ADV. MR.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.-------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2010 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010JUDGMENT Having heard Adv.
Koshi George, who appears for the 15th respondent, Sri. Millu Dandapani who appears for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned GovernmentPleader, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petitionitself can be disposed of.2. The petitioner has approached this Courtcomplaining of inaction of the 4th respondent in not completing the proceedings under Section 21 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978, hereinafterreferred to as 'Act', for short. The petitioner complains that there were approximately 125 workers in the Depot of Kerala State Civil SuppliesCorporation who were doing the work of loading and unloading works other than the sliding and stacking works. On account of a dispute raised by respondents wpc No.3744/2010 26 to 14 claiming that the work of sliding and stacking the goods also form part of general head load work, the petitioner complains that he has been denied employment. He has raised a dispute under Section21 of the Head Load Worker's Act before the 4threspondent.
However, the proceedings have not been completed so far. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions for expediting the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition isdisposed of directing respondents 4 and 5 to take appropriate action on Ext.P7 representation, in accordance with law, after giving notice to and hearing all the interested parties, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGEcss/
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
theKerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 — s. 21; Head Load Worker's Act — s. 21.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 04 Feb 2010. The bench was K SURENDRA MOHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.