Disposed

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin)Mills v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2008WP(C)/7657/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the 2nd Respondent need not give another opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to produce documents proving casual employment. Ext.P3 is kept in abeyance till fresh orders are passed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is kept in abeyance; the 2nd Respondent to hear the petitioner and affected workers and pass fresh orders within two months.

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin)Mills Vs State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 7657 of 2008(J)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER: ------------

¶8

ALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) MILLS, A UNIT OF NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD., ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 302, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.UMA GOPINATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS: -------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE INSPECTOR UNDER THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS (NATIONAL & FESTIVAL HOLIDAYS) ACT & THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER . SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶16

==================

¶17

W.P.(C).No.7657 of 2008

¶18

==================

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner is a unit of National Textile Corporation, which is a Central Government Undertaking. The establishment employs about 800 persons. 32 persons are casually engaged by the petitioner, on a compassionate gesture, they being dependents of former employees who died in harness. According to the petitioner, such employees will not come within the ambit of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958, and therefore, they are not entitled to the national and festival holidays as permitted by the Act. However, the 2^nd respondent, by Ext.P3, directed the petitioner to disburse wages to the said 32 persons for the 13 national holidays for the year 2007 holding that they are employees of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to prove before the 2^nd respondent that these persons are not liable to be covered under the Act, they being casual employees. They further submit that the establishment is

¶21

¶22

w.p.c.7657/08

¶23

a sick unit and they are unable to meet the commitment towards holiday wages to those 32 persons also as directed by Ext.P3. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following relief:

¶24

“i. to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to letter No.643/07 dated 28.12.2007 issued by the 2^nd respondent evidenced by Ext.P3 and to quash Ext.P3.”

¶25

The learned Government Pleader has filed a counter

¶26

affidavit in which it is stated that the manager of the petitioner appeared before the 2^nd respondent and his statement was recorded and therefore, the petitioner cannot now contend that

¶27

the petitioner was not given an opportunity.

¶28

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶29

In view of the disputed contention regarding lack of opportunity to the petitioner to produce proof of their case, I feel that the 2^nd respondent should give the petitioner another opportunity to prove their contentions. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶30

The 2^nd respondent shall hear the petitioner and a representative of the affected workers again after affording an

¶31

w.p.c.7657/08 3

¶32

opportunity to produce evidence to prove the case of the petitioner. This process shall be completed and fresh orders passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of his judgment. Till such time, Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶33

sdk+

¶34

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶35

///True copy///

¶36

P.A. to Judge

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin)Mills v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin)Mills v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Vasudevan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Vinod B.S. Vs State of Kerala

Donnie J.M.Philip Vs P.Venugopal

Dr.B.Balakrishnan Vs Dr.Joby.v.Paul

P.P. Valsalan Vs State of Kerala

K.Krishnan Vs K.S.R.T.C.