Dismissed

E.M.Shanavas v. Asst. Labour Officer Grade II

Kerala HC17 Mar 2010WP(C)/6685/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a headload worker sought directions preventing the Assistant Labour Officer from issuing registration cards without the Chairman's concurrence. The Court held the petition premature, noted no grounds to presume violation, and observed that an appeal remained an available remedy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was premature; no alternative reliefs were granted.

E.M.Shanavas Vs Asst. Labour Officer Grade II — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 6685 of 2010(I)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

E.M.SHANAVAS, S/O.E.P.MEERAN, EDASSERYKUNEL HOUSE,NOCHUMA, N A D-P.O,ALUVA-683 563, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. MR.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL), MR.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GRADE-II, ALUVA 683 101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ALUVA SUB OFFICE -683 101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION -683 101,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER, R2 BY MR.KOSHY GEORGE, S.C, K.H.L.W.W.B.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

prv.

¶18

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶19

W.P(C) NO:6685 OF 2010

¶20

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th March, 2010.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is a headload worker who is working in pool No: 10 of Aluva. He is a person who has a labour card and identity card issued issued by the Assistant Labour Officer under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and the Rules thereunder. According to the petitioner, there are 15 workers in the pool who are entitled to do the loading and unloading work in the area. He complains that the shop owners are engaging other persons who are not registered under the Act and the Rules for the purpose of attending to their work. He also alleges that the shop owners have given applications to the first respondent for issuing identity cards and registration to new workmen. He apprehends that the first respondent would issue the registration and identity cards, without getting a no objection from the second respondent, Chairman. He seeks appropriate directions to the first respondent interdicting him from issuing registration and labour cards without the concurrence of the second respondent.

¶23

Shri. Koshy George who appears for the second respondent Welfare Fund Board submits that no registration has been granted

¶24

¶25

WPC 6685/2010

¶26

to the workers who have submitted applications for registration. In the event of such registrations being granted without the concurrence of the second respondent Board, the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to challenge the same.

¶27

I notice that the first respondent is only in the process of considering the applications for registration submitted by the workers. There are no grounds to assume that the registration would be granted without the concurrence of the second respondent as alleged. There can be no presumption that the first respondent would act in contravention of the law. If the first respondent acts in contravention of any provision of law the petitioner has the right to challenge such action in appeal under the relevant provisions of the Act. This writ petition is premature. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶29

¶30

WPC 6685/2010 3

¶31

K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

¶32

M.F.A.NO:

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Dated:

E.M.Shanavas v. Asst. Labour Officer Grade II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.M.Shanavas v. Asst. Labour Officer Grade II

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

Santhosh Vs Rta,Kozhikode

Marykutty Varghese Vs Managing Director

D.Pradeep Vs the Secretary,Regional Transport Authori

Fact Employees (Intuc) Vs the Fact Ltd.

K.P.Manikandan Vs the R.T.A and Others

C.a.Vincent Vs Rta, Kozhikode and Another