Dismissed

T.K.Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 May 2009WP(C)/6873/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners are registered headload workers claiming denial of employment by a contractor. The dispute is pending before the Deputy Labour Officer regarding conciliation proceedings. The Court directed the officer to finalize conciliation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent Deputy Labour Officer to complete conciliation proceedings within six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.

T.K.Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH MAY 2009 / 25TH VAISAKHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 6873 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

1. T.K. SURESH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAPPAN, THURUTHEL HOUSE, KOKKAYAR, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶9

2. V.I. SHAJI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ISMAEL, VARIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL

¶10

3. JOE ABRAHAM, AGED 40 YEARS, ANDOOR HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶11

4. BABU SEBASTIAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, KANYIYANTHARA HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶12

5. C.D. JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. DEVASIA, NJARAKKATTU HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶13

6. K.N. SUKUMARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, ANANDAVILASAM, KOOTTIKKAL

¶14

7. K.C. CHACKO, AGD 55 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, KANIYATTU THAYIL HOUSE,

¶15

8. M.M. MANI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. MAMMEN, MANAYATH HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶16

9. THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. BABY, EDATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶17

10. M.C. KUTTAPPAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. CEHRIAN, MUTHUKADU HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶18

11. SHEREEF K.S., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN, KALLUPURAKKAL HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶19

W.P.(C). NO. 6873/2009-D

¶20

12. M.K. SURESH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. KUNJOONJU, MATTATHIL HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶21

13. P.R. RAJAN BABU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL.

¶22

14. MATHEW VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PURAPPANTHANATHU HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶23

BY ADV. MR.JOY GEORGE SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH

¶24

RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

------------------------

¶26

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANNTHAPURAM.

¶27

2. THE RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, ERUMELI.

¶28

3. DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI.

¶29

4. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PEERUMADE.

¶30

5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERUMADE.

¶31

6. BABY MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, THAYILL HOUSE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶32

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REMANI R6 BY ADV. MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

W.P.(C). NO. 6873/2009-D

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXT.P1 SERIES (13 IN NUMBER): COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 13.

¶38

EXT.P2 SERIES (4 IN NUMBER): COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARDS OF SOME OF THE REGISTERED HEAD LOAD WORKERS OF KOKKAYAR PANCHAYATH.

¶39

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05/01/2009 PREFERRED BY THE REGISTERED WORKERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF CONCILIATION DATED 12/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF CONCILIATION UNDER SECTION 3 OF SECTION 21 OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/02/2009.

¶43

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INFORMING THE LIE AND EXTENT OF URUMBIKKARA FOREST RESERVE.

¶44

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF KOKKAYAR PANCHAYATH.

¶45

EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.

¶46

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXT.R6(a): COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.A2-7845/07 DATED 04/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM TO THIS DEPONENT.

¶48

EXT.R6(b): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.7/2008-09 DATED 19/12/2008 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶49

EXT.R6(c): COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD WITH RGN. NO.C6-C1-233/90 ISSUED TO K.N.SAJEEVKUMAR ON 08/04/1990.

¶50

EXT.R6(d): COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO SRI.GOPI K.B. DURING THE YEAR 1999.

¶51

EXT.R6(e): COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO SRI.P.G.KUNJUMON DURING THE YEAR 1999.

¶52

EXT.R6(f): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16/11/2008 WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UN IONS.

¶53

EXT.R6(g): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07/02/2009 PREFERRED BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Rs/

V.GIRI, J.

W.P.(C).NO.6873 of 2009

¶59

Dated this the 15^th day of May, 2009.

¶60

JUDGMENT

¶61

The petitioners claim to be registered Headload Workers in the Koottikkal Panchayat. According to them, Koottikkal Panchayat is a notified area, wherein the Headload Workers' Scheme has been made applicable. There are 120 registered workers, who were issued identity cards in the Koottikkal Panchayat.

¶62

Essentially the dispute in the writ petition relates to the alleged denial of employment by the 6^th respondent contractor. The issue is pending before the Deputy Labour Officer, Thodupuzha, Idukki, the 3^rd respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P5.

¶63

Having heard counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the Deputy Labour Officer, the 3^rd respondent may complete the conciliation proceedings within a time frame and if he is not in a position to arrive at a settlement, the parties are entitled to take further steps, as contemplated by the Headload Workers Act.

¶64

W.P.(C).NO.6873 of 2009

¶65

:: 2 ::

¶66

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶67

under Rule 25(2) of the Rules, it is mandatory on the part of the conciliation officer to communicate the decision taken, at the conciliation, to the parties, to enable them to take further steps in terms of Section 22 of the Headload Workers Act.

¶68

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to finalise the conciliation proceedings pending before him, as evidenced by Ext.P5, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The conciliation shall be completed after notice to all the persons concerned.

Sd/- (V.GIRI)

JUDGE

sk/

//true copy//

T.K.Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Suresh 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

Chairman, S.M.D.Public School, Peroor, Vs State and Others

Sarathkumar K Vs Controller of Examinations

Naushad Vs the R.T.a,Kollam

P.Nisam Vs the D.E.O. and Others

The Manager, Darussalam L.P.School Vs the State of Kerala and Others

M.v.Joseph Vs Corporation of Cochin