Partly allowed

V.G.Thomson v. Assistant Labour Officer

Kerala HC20 Oct 2016WP(C)/31410/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Kerala quashed an order rejecting applications for registration of employees under the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules. The Court held that the Assistant Labour Officer failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by dismissing the applications solely due to the employees' absence on the hearing date, directing the respondent to reconsider them afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.5.16 (Ext.P3) is set aside. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the registration applications afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and the Ad

V.G.Thomson Vs Assistant Labour Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 31410 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. V.G.THOMSON, VKG MORNING STAR VEGETABLE AND FRUITS, BUILDING NO.650 A, EL SHADAI BUILDING COMPLEX, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR - 680 507.

¶8

2. V.G.PRINCESON, ADONAI TRADE CENTRE, BUILDING NO.650 B, EL SHADAI BUILDING COMPLEX, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR - 680 507.

¶9

3. V.G.SEBASTIAN, VKG PLANTAINS, BUILDING NO.650 C, EL SHADAI BUILDING COMPLEX, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR - 680 507.

¶10

BY SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV.SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR - 680 506.

¶13

*ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED

¶14

2. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, CHAVAKKAD LOCAL COMMITTEE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶15

ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 7.10.2016 IN IA.15544/2016.

¶16

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S. AJITH PRAKASH, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 31410 of 2016 (A)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXHIBIT P1.	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.11254/16 DATED 23.3.16.
EXHIBIT P2.	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.4.16 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3.	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.5.16 NO.HLA 63/15 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

¶24

mbr/

¶25

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 31410 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

1.This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent under Rule 26(a) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules.

¶30

2.The petitioners are the proprietors of different establishments. They have their own employees for the loading and unloading works being carried out in their establishments. They submitted applications for registration of those employees under the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules. On account of non-consideration of the applications, they had approached this Court with WP(C) No.11254/2016, which was disposed of, as per Ext.P1 judgment, directing the first respondent herein to consider the applications within one month.

¶31

3.It appears that when Ext.P2 hearing notice was issued, the petitioners' employees could not appear before the

¶32

..2..

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 31410 of 2016

¶34

first respondent on 02.05.2016. It was deposed by the petitioners that on that day, those employees were on leave and had gone to their States for casting vote. Though the petitioners sought time for producing those employees before the first respondent on return after leave, taking note of the time limit fixed by this Court, without granting a further time, the applications for registration have been rejected as per Ext.P3 order. It is challenging Ext.P3 order, this writ petition has been filed.

¶35

4.This Court is of the view that the first respondent has erred in rejecting the applications. If the employees were not present on the date of hearing, necessarily, the first respondent ought to have adjourned the proceedings to enable the employees to appear before him. It has to be noted that the first respondent, in exercising the power of an administrative authority, has to adhere to the principles of natural justice. However, he could not have simply dismissed the applications

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 31410 of 2016

¶37

..3..

¶38

solely on account of the absence of the employees on the day, which was scheduled for hearing.

¶39

5.In that view of the matter, Ext.P3 impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioners as also to the additional second respondent. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

6.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶41

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶42

bka/-

V.G.Thomson v. Assistant Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.G.Thomson v. Assistant Labour Officer

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

Lonappan Vs Mohanan

G.Sali Vs the Executive Engineer

Sarala Devi Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner

Valsamma George Vs Dr.P.v.Balachandran

K.v.Radhakrishnan Vs Smt.Jameela.M.E

N.P. Ramankutty Vs v. Ratheesan