Dismissed

Ali M.A. v. the Assistant Labour Officer

Kerala HC1 Aug 2012WP(C)/18129/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by serving Headload workers seeking an opportunity of being heard before the Assistant Labour Officer granted registration to fresh applicants. Relying on a prior judgment in WP(C) 16349/2012, the court held that existing workers have no right to be heard and can only challenge the registration order if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking a direction to afford an opportunity of being heard before granting registration to fresh applicants was dismissed.

Ali M.A. Vs the Assistant Labour Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012/10TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 18129 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

ALI M.A., AGED 50 YEARS

¶8

AGED 50, MATHRUKATT HOUSE, PERINGALA

¶9

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

MEEDHINKUNJU M.A.

¶11

AGED 51, MATHRUKATT HOUSE, PERINGALA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶13

SMT.P.M.NASEEMA

¶14

SRI.TITTO THOMAS SRI.K.A.ANI JOSEPH

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶17

THE CHAIRMAN

¶18

KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD

¶19

THRIPUNITHURA LOCAL COMMITTEE

¶20

THRIPUNITHURA 682 301.

¶21

M.K.BAVA MATHRUKATT HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O. ERNAKULAM 682303.

¶22

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.G.GOPAKUMAR BY SRI. P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN SC, KHWWB

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.4209/2000/LBR DATED 08/12/2000.

¶27

EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/07/2012 BEFORE THE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶33

W.P(C) NO: 18129 OF 2012

¶34

Dated this the 1^st August, 2012.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioners are registered Headload Workers of the

¶37

Brahmapuram area. According to them, the existing Headload workers are more than sufficient for discharging the work available in the area. In the above circumstances, the third respondent and some others have submitted applications before the first respondent seeking registration as Headload workers. The petitioners allege that the first respondent is likely to grant registration to the fresh applicants without considering the fact that the existing workers are surplus and that there are no fresh job opportunities available. Therefore, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P2 objections. They seek the issue of a direction to the first respondent to afford them an opportunity of being heard, in the matter of granting registration to the third respondent and other applicants.

¶38

The question as to whether the existing Headload workers

¶39

in an area have a right to be heard in the matter of grant of registration to fresh Headload workers has been considered by me

¶40

WPC 18129/2012 2

¶41

in the judgment dated 24^th July, 2012 in WP(C) 16349/2012. It has been held by me on a consideration of the provisions of the Headload Workers Act, 1978 that the existing Headload Workers have no right to be heard in the matter. The only right available to them is to challenge the order granting registration, if they are aggrieved.

¶42

In view of the decision referred to above, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to challenge the decision that the first respondent may take in the matter, if they are aggrieved.

¶43

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

jj /True copy/

P.S.to Judge

WPC 18129/2012

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶49

¶50

WPC 18129/2012 4

Ali M.A. v. the Assistant Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali M.A. v. the Assistant Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanumathi.B. Vs Dr.Gopinathan

Kozhikode Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank LTD.NO.43 Vs P.P.Mohammed Ashraf

Rajan Vs the Kumaramputhur Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Abdul Azeez Vs Smt.a.S.Anuja

The Secretary Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Supran C.T. Vs the Assistant Labour Officer