Dismissed

Manager,Amakkal Estate v. Secretary,Peermede Thottam Thozhilali

Kerala HC12 Jul 2013WP(C)/15977/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Inspector of Plantation's prohibition on collecting fees from workers for keeping excess cattle. The judge found no statutory authority authorizing such levies in the applicable settlement or acts, noting the worker had already been dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to discontinue collecting fees; order to refund dismissed as worker dismissed.

Manager,Amakkal Estate Vs Secretary,Peermede… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2013/21ST ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 15977 of 2007 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MANAGER, ARNAKKAL ESTATE, THE MIDLAND RUBBER AND PRODUCE COMPANY LIMITED ARNAKKAL, VANDIPERIYAR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶9

SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE SECRETARY, PEERMEDE THOTTAM THOZHILALI UNION (CITU), VANDIPERIYAR.

¶12

2. THE INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS, PEERMEDE.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SMT.A.K.PREETHA

¶14

SRI.M.R.RAJESH

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

tss

¶18

WP(C) NO.15977/2007

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

P1:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.730 DTD. 22.6.1960 REGARDING CATTLE ON ESTATE.

¶22

P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLC HELD ON 26.2.1960.

¶23

P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 13.11.2006.

¶24

P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 8.1.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29.1.2007.

¶26

P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 26.3.2007.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

B.P. Ray, J.

====================================

¶34

W.P.(C)No.15977/2007

¶35

====================================

¶36

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2013.

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing

¶39

counsel for the second respondent.

¶40

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Inspector of Plantation has

¶41

no jurisdiction while exercising powers under the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 or under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 to prohibit collection of any fee from the labourers who have kept cattle. From the complaint, Ext.P3, which is in Malayalam and which was explained to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the contesting respondent, it reveals that the fee for keeping excess cattle is being collected without any authority of law by the plantation authorities. Therefore, after issuing notice to show cause, the Inspector of Plantation, vide Ext.P6 communication, directed the petitioner to discontinue the practice of effecting deduction of levy of cattles from the wages of workers and also to

¶42

W.P.(C)No.15977/2007 -:2:-

¶43

refund the entire amount of such deduction effected from the wages of Sri.Udayasooryan, C.R.No.4370, Hillash Division from the year 1991.

¶44

On a query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner to show what is the authority of the petitioner to collect such fee or damages from the workers, he submitted that, in pursuance to Ext.P2 settlement, it was being collected. I have gone through Ext.P2. I do not find any provision which authorizes the plantation authorities to levy fee or damages from the workers. What the labourers are permitted is to keep one cow and a calf. Therefore, the Inspector of Plantation has not exceeded its jurisdiction in exercising his power prohibiting the petitioner from collecting any fee without any authority of law. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been dismissed from service. Therefore, the question of further recovery does not arise. Whether the plantation authorities has power to collect fee or not is kept open. I have not

¶45

W.P.(C)No.15977/2007

¶46

-:3:-

¶47

examined the authority of the petitioner to collect fee from the

¶48

workers and his lis in the writ petition, so far as the first respondent

¶49

is concerned, has become infructuous due to dismissal of the workers.

¶50

sl.

¶51

B.P. Ray, Judge.

Manager,Amakkal Estate v. Secretary,Peermede Thottam Thozhilali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager,Amakkal Estate v. Secretary,Peermede Thottam Thozhilali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.v.Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Leela and Another Vs the Chairman, K.S.E.B and Another

Ajith E.K. Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Vs Union of India

A.P.Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs the Principal Secretary,Power Department

M/Shotel Prince Vs the Commercial Tax Officer