Petitioner sought re-engagement barred by Government Order if criminal cases are pending. High Court held pendency prevents entitlement despite withdrawal petition filing.
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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/17TH KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 14971 of 2013 (V)
PETITIONER:
JAISON C JAMES, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.JAMES, CHITTAPPURATH HOUSE, PAYYAVVUR P O PIN-670633.
BY ADVS.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JOJO GEORGE SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
RESPONDENTS:
TAXES(A)DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001
R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,BEVERAGES CORPN. R1, R2 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAMA PRASAD UNNI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 14971 of 2013 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD IN FORM 7 OF KERALA ABKARI WORKERS' WELFARE FUND SCHEME REVEALING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PETITIOERN IN KERALA ABKARI WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD.
EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO 782/2011/TD DTD. 2/11/2011
EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD 15/11/2011
EXT.P3(A):-TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF 72 OUT OF 86 FORMER DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEES WITH REGISTRATION IN KERALA ABKARI WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD.
EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD 18/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE F I R IN CRIME NO 254/11 PAYYAVOOR POLICE STATION
EXT.P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 29/11/2011
EXT.P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO 15151/L4/12/HOME DTD 14/6/2012
EXT.P8:-TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 334/2009
EXT.P9:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 27/6/2011 IN I.A 1800/2009 IN OS.334/2009.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.8.2012 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALIPARAMBU IN C.C.NO.65/2012.
EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 19.3.2013 FILED BY CW2.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
TKS
P.S. TO JUDGE
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C)No.14971 of 2013
Dated 8th November, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a Daily Waged Abkari Worker enrolled under the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Board. Later, he was disengaged. The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of Ext.P2 Government order dated 2.11.2011 he is entitled to get reengaged. However, the request of the petitioner for re-engagement based on Ext.P2 was not considered favourably on account of the pendency of C.C.No.65 of 2012 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba arising from Crime No.254 of 2011 of Payyavoor Police Station. The contention of the petitioner is that the Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed a petition for withdrawing the said calendar case under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is still pending. In the said circumstances, according to the petitioner, the pendency of the aforesaid calendar case could not have been taken as a reason for delaying or denying consideration of his right to get re-engaged under Ext.P2.
2
WP(C).No.14971/2013
Clause 3 of Ext.P2 which reads thus:-
“3. As per the Government letter read as 3rd paper above, direction was given to Managing Director, Kerala State Beverages Corporation, to re-engage the deserted/disengaged Daily Wage Workers except those who were disengaged due to disciplinary action and those against whom criminal cases are pending/convicted.”
It is obvious from Clause 3 of Ext.P2 that pendency of a criminal case is a sufficient reason for declining re-engagement. In other words, a person against whom a criminal case is pending is not entitled to get reengagement. Despite the fact that a petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C. is filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the aforementioned calendar case what remains as a fact is that the criminal case is still pending against the petitioner. Filing of a petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C. need not necessarily culminate in withdrawal of the concerned case as its fate depends upon the final judicial order to be passed thereon. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot legally seek for the benefit under Ext.P2 for the time being. Certainly, it will be
WP(C).No.14971/2013
3
open to the petitioner to work out his remedies for an early disposal of the criminal case in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the said observation.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge
TKS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pendency of a criminal case constitutes a bar to re-engagement of a disengaged daily wage worker under a Government Order.
Jaison C James
State of Kerala
Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd
Sub-Inspector of Police, Payyavoor
C.T.Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
