Allowed

Thiruvananthapuram Jilla Chumattu Thozhilali Congress (Intuc) v. All Kerala Headload and General Workers Union

Kerala HC4 Jan 2013RP/5/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petitioners sought review of a judgment dismissing their writ petition filed under emergency provisions. They caused the dismissal due to failure of their counsel to notice an informal defect. The High Court allowed the review, set aside the judgment, and directed fresh hearing, maintaining status quo in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed, judgment under review set aside, and writ petition to be heard and disposed afresh with status quo maintained.

Thiruvananthapuram Jilla Chumattu Thozhilali Congress… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/14TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

RP.No.5 of 2013 (U) IN WPC.NO.23761/2012

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.23761/2012 DATED 17-12-2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS NO.4,5 AND 6 IN THE W.P.(C):

¶8

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM JILLA CHUMATTU

¶9

THOZHILALI CONGRESS (INTUC) CENTRAL OFFICE, CHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-36 REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT SECRETARY-695036.

¶10

ALL KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS UNION (AITUC) HO KODER LANE, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 695036.

¶11

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), CHALA BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 695036.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN

¶13

SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.R.SRINATH SRI.P.PRASANTH

¶14

SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE

¶15

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2 AND 3 IN THE WPC:

¶16

ALL KERALA HEADLOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, AGED 52 YEARS UNITED TRADE CONGRESS (B) REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR A.SHAJAHAN, S/O.K.ALIKUNJU, KURAKKANI CHIRAYIL MELEVILAKATHU PUTHENVEEDU, MANCHA P.O., NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - PIN 695541.

¶17

DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶18

REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

¶19

KOLLAM 691001.

¶20

CHAIRMAN

¶21

HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, VANCHIYOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695036.

¶22

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR BY SRI.C.S. AJITH PRAKASH, SC, KHWWB

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶25

R.P.No.5 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.23761 Of 2012

¶26

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2013.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Adv.Sri.B.N.Shiv Shanker entered appearance for the 1^st respondent, learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 & 3 and Adv.Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash for the 4^th respondent.

¶29

Review petitioners are respondents 4 - 6 in W.P.(C). No.23761/2012. Review petitioners seek to review the judgment dated 17.12.2012. The writ petition was disposed of on 17.12.2012. This Court issued notice to respondents 4 to 6 in the writ petition on 30.10.2012. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for consideration and disposed on 17.12.2012. It is submitted by the petitioners that they were not able to submit their contentions as the vakalath filed by them was returned on the date of filing noticing the defect “no seal”. Petitioners submit that the said defect was not noticed by the counsel and the writ petition was disposed on 17.12.2012. The names of the counsel for the review petitioners were not shown in the cause list on

¶30

::2::

¶31

R.P.No.5/2013

¶32

17.12.2012 and in such circumstances, the review petitioner could not appear and argue the case. It is also pointed out that the connected writ petition filed by the petitioners was pending consideration on the date of disposal of the writ petition. In the circumstance, the petitioners seek to review the judgment dated

¶33

17.12.2012 and request for a hearing and disposal on merits.

¶34

In the facts and circumstances noticed above, this

¶35

Court is of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the review petitioners to substantiate their case on merits. The review petition is therefore, allowed. Judgment under review is set aside. Parties shall maintain status quo as on today till the writ petition is heard and disposed of afresh.

¶36

Post W.P.(C).No.23761/2012 along with W.P.(C).

¶37

No.27504/2012 on 9.1.2013.

¶38

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶39

bkn/-

Thiruvananthapuram Jilla Chumattu Thozhilali Congress (Intuc) v. All Kerala Headload and General Workers Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruvananthapuram Jilla Chumattu Thozhilali Congress (Intuc) v. All Kerala Headload and General Workers Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.N.Mukundan Vs Baby Antony

State of Kerala Vs K.S. Mohammed Kunhi

V.P.George Vs v.J.Easow

Pachalloor Sree Bhadrakali Devi Kshethra Devaswom Vs S.Mohanan

The General Manger, Ksidc,Tvm. Vs P.K.Padmanabhan

Phonographic Performance Limited Vs Casino Hotel - Cgh Earth