Disposed

Royappan v. Appellate Authority Under Kerala Planati

Kerala HC19 Jan 2012WP(C)/28733/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the eviction of a retired plantation worker following the service obligation provisions of Kerala Plantation Labour Rules. The Court recorded the submission of management that the petitioner's son was subsequently given permanent appointment, allowing continued occupancy, and disposed of the petition without further adjudication.

What the court decided

AI extract

Royappan Vs Appellate Authority Under Kerala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/29TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 28733 of 2005 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ROYAPPAN, C.R.NO.1245, EX.WORKER, NETTIMAED DIVISION, MADUPETTI ESTATE MADUPETTI P.O., MUNNAR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE

¶11

KERALA PLANTATION LABOUR RULES

¶12

(LABOUR COMMISSIONER), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS,

¶14

KOTTAYAM.

¶15

3. THE MANAGER, MADUPETTY ESTATE,

¶16

MADUPETTI P.O., MUNNAR.

¶17

R3 BY SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC

¶18

R3 BY SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.)

¶19

R3 BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶20

R3 BY SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR

¶21

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.K.SAIDALAVI

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 28733 of 2005 (U)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P2 : COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 DATED 27.4.2001.

¶28

P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN E.C.13/2001 DATED 16.11.2004.

¶29

P4 : COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN E.A.1/2005 DATED 13.6.2005.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

stu

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶36

¶37

W.P.C.NO.28733 OF 2005

¶38

- - - - Dated this the 19^th day of January 2012

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The steps taken by the third respondent to evict the petitioner

¶41

from the accommodation provided by the management in the plantation premises, pursuant to retirement of the petitioner from

¶42

the service on 31.07.1999, form the subject matter of dispute.

¶43

The petitioner was an employee, who retired from the

¶44

service on 31.07.1999 as aforesaid and was residing with his family in the same premises, availing the accommodation provided by the third respondent management while in service. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's son also got an employment in the very same estate and inspite of the statutory obligation on the part of the management enabling the worker to continue to occupy the accommodation facility, if any other member of his family is in employment of the management, by virtue of Rule 63 of the Kerala

¶45

W.P.C.NO.28733 OF 2005 2

¶46

Plantation Labour Rules, the petitioner was directed to surrender vacant possession.

¶47

The steps taken by the management were sought to be challenged by the petitioner, which however did not turn to be fruitful, as borne by Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent. This in turn was challenged by filing an appeal before the first respondent vide Ext.P4 and after considering the same, interference was declined and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P5. The petitioner has come before this Court challenging Ext.P3 and P5

¶48

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the third respondent management submits that the factual position as it existed on the date of passing of Ext.P3 and P5 has undergone substantial change by this time; in so far as the son of the petitioner has been given a permanent appointment and he is now working under the third respondent management. By virtue of the

¶49

W.P.C.NO.28733 OF 2005 3

¶50

permanent appointment given to the son of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner and his family are being permitted to continue to occupy the building along with his son. This being the position, nothing further remains to be considered or adjudicated in this writ petition.

¶51

In the above circumstance, the submission made by the third respondent as above is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶53

stu

¶54

W.P.C.NO.28733 OF 2005 4

¶55

W.P.C.NO.28733 OF 2005 5

¶56

W.P.C.NO.28733 OF 2005 6

Royappan v. Appellate Authority Under Kerala Planati

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Royappan v. Appellate Authority Under Kerala Planati

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

All Kerala Document Writers&Scribes Assn Vs State of Kerala

P.Ayyappan Vs Nivedida P.Haran and Others

Babu Vadakkedam Vs the K.S.E.Board

M.Nirmala Devi Vs the State of Kerala

Mrs.Sukumari Narendra Menon Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner & Another