SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38457

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J
H M NAJEEM – Appellant
Versus
KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD – Respondent


J U D G M E N T

Standing counsel takes notice for respondents 1, 2 & 4.

Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the 3rd respondent.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus or order directing the 2nd respondent to take up and dispose of Ext.P7 complaint and for other incidental reliefs.

3. Petitioners are headload workers. They are engaged in pool No.80 under the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that 30 headload workers including petitioners are pooled in pool No.80. Ext.P5 is the copy of the complaint dated 3.8.2012 submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent complaining about the conduct of trade unions in the matter of regulating the work of headload workers. It is stated that certain tactics employed by the trade union leaders had resulted in victimization and harassment of headload workers. In the circumstances, Ext.P5 complaint was lodged before the 3rd respondent. It is also averred in the writ petition that when the petitioners were ::2::

reported for work on 25.8.2012, the pool leader obstructed the petitioners from doing their work. The union leader had directed the other workers to work. In these circumstances, the petitioners submitted Ext.P6 com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top