Disposed

Tukuna Behera v. the Asst.Labour Officer

Kerala HC24 Mar 2010WP(C)/8384/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay by the Labour Office in considering petitions for registration under the Headload Workers Rules. The court directed the respondent to consider the applications expeditiously without further delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

Tukuna Behera Vs the Asst.Labour Officer — 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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 8384 of 2010(W)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. TUKUNA BEHERA, SITARAM TRADING CO., TC.11/1988, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015.

¶10

2. BIDYADHAR PRADHAN, SITARAM TRADING CO., TC.11/1988, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015.

¶11

3. BIJAY MOHANKUD, SITARAM TRADING CO., TC.11/1988, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015.

¶12

4. AJAY KUMAR MOHANTI, SITARAM TRADING CO., TC.11/1988, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015.

¶13

BY ADVS. MR. R.RANJITH,

¶14

MR. M.T.SURESHKUMAR.

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

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

¶17

1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, LABOUR OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, SITARAM TRADING CO., CLEARING & FOREWARDING AGENCY FOR HINDUSTAN, COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD., TC 11/1988, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015.

¶19

R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUAMR.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

prv.

¶22

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.8384 of 2010

¶24

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2010

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioners are permanent workers, doing loading and unloading work in the establishment of the second respondent at Thiruvananthapuram. They have filed Exts.P1 to P4 applications seeking registration under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules. They complain that no orders have been passed on their applications, so far. The applications submitted by the petitioners are evidenced herein by Exts.P1 to P4. They are dated 6.3.2010. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the applications are to be considered and action taken thereon within a period of two weeks. However, the learned Senior Government Pleader brings my notice that the authority would have to attend to other responsibilities also as part of his official duties. The applications also have to be got enquired into. However it is assured that the applications would be considered and orders passed, without delay.

¶27

In the above circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider Exts.P1 to P4 applications submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶28

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶29

css/

Tukuna Behera v. the Asst.Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tukuna Behera v. the Asst.Labour Officer

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

C.Byju Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Aipu Joseph Vs the District Executive Officer

P.Prasad Kumar Vs the Kannur District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Aruna Sridhar Vs State Transport Authority

T.S.Harikumar Vs Syama.G & Another

M.Ravindran Vs the Joint Registrar