The High Court dismissed the writ petition contesting the rejection of an appeal in labour proceedings. The court held that an appeal filed four months after the impugned order, though received in time for calculation, fell beyond the six-month absolute bar under Rule 25A(1) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, citing Samrat Exports.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/29TH KARTHIKA 1934
WP(C).No. 8472 of 2012 (H)
PETITIONER(S):
1. VIDYADARAN, AGED 53 YEARS
KUNNATHODU (THODINADA) UNIT)`
2. C.JOHN, AGED 46 YEARS,
KUNNATHODU (THODINADA) UNIT)
3. G.CHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
4. SURESH T., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, NJARUMMOODU VEEDU, KATTELA SREEKARIYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (JOINT CONVENER
5. SUBOTH K.S., AGED 39 YEARS,
tss
W.P.(C) NO.8472/2012
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)695 001.
2. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER KOLLAM.691 001.
3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
4. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2ND CIRCLE, KAZHAKKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 675 582.
5. MADHU, CONVENER, INTUC KUZHIVILA UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581.
6. ANEESH, JOINT CONVENER, (INTUC), INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS, KUZHIVILA UNIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581.
7. VIJAYAN, CONVENER, CITU, KUZHIVILA UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581.
8. KARTHIKEYA, JOINT CONVENER, (CITU), CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION, KUZHIVILA UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581.
R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN R5 TO 8 BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL R5 TO 8 BY ADV. SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
W.P.(C) NO.8472/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARDS OF PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.12.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTERS INCLUDING EXT.P2.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF POSTAL COVER ADDRESSED TO 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM H.L.A NO06/2011.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONING DELAY.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
tss
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
W.P.(C).No.8472 Of 2012 ---------------------Dated this the 20th day of November, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 order and for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P6 application taking into consideration that Ext.P2 was received by the petitioners only on 19.5.2011.
::2::
W.P.(C).No.8472 Of 2012
that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period. The second proviso provides that no such appeal shall be admitted after a period of six months from the date of decision appealed against. In the light of second proviso the appellate authority is not empowered to entertain appeals preferred after a period of six months from the date of decision appealed against. This Court in the decision reported in Samrat Exports &
Importers v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise
(2005(4)KLT 828) held that special statute when prescribes a certain period of limitation for filing an application and provides on clear terms that such period on sufficient cause being shown may be extended in the maximum only up to a specified time limit and no further, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to treat within the limitation an application filed before it beyond such maximum time limit specified in the statute.
In the light of the proviso to Rule 25A(1), the 2nd respondent is justified in not entertaining the appeal. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.
bkn/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate authority is empowered to entertain an appeal filed after a period of four months from the date of decision appealed against, despite receipt delay.
Whether the appellate authority can condone a delay in filing an appeal if the appeal is preferred beyond the six-month period specified in Rule 25A(1) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules.
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the rejection order and direction for re-con sideration of the appeal succeeds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Samrat Exports & Importers v. Commissioner of Customs & Central ExciseRelied on¶58
Samrat Exports & Importers v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (2005(4)KLT 828)
VIDYADARAN AND OTHERS
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
MADHU
HARUN-UL-RASHID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
