Partly allowed

Anoop Poulose v. Joint Labour Commissioner

Kerala HC6 Jan 2021WP(C)/323/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three drivers petitioned the High Court ordering the Joint Labour Commissioner to dispose of statutory appeals filed regarding their illegal termination from Marthoma Educational Society without declaring entitlement to relief. The court directed the authority to act within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to take up and dispose of exhibits P1 to P4 (statutory appeals) within two months after hearing petitioners.

Anoop Poulose Vs Joint Labour Commissioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.323 OF 2021(M)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ANOOP POULOSE AGED 45 YEARS

¶8

S/O. T.K, POULOSE, THENIMOOLAYIL, BRAHMAPURAM P.O, AMBALAMEDU, ERNAKULAM - 682303.

¶9

2 BINOY C.K AGED 38 YEARS

¶10

S/O. KUMARAN, CHERIYAMOOLA HOUSE, NAVODAYA, THENGODE P.O, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM - 682030.

¶11

3 RAJESH K.R AGED 40 YEARS S/O. C.P. RAJAN, KEERELIMALAYIL, KUSUMAGIRI P.O,

¶12

ERNAKULAM - 682030.

¶13

4 VIJU AGED 42 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, CHATHRATTIL VEEDU, NAVODAYA, THENGODU P.O, KAKKANADU- 682030.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN

¶15

RESPONDENT:

¶16

JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM - 682030.

¶17

SRI. RAVI KRISHNAN - GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.323 OF 2021 2

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioners say that they were

¶22

Drivers of Marthoma Educational Society,

¶23

Kochi and that they were terminated from their services illegally, thus constraining them to raise disputes under Section 2(k) of

¶24

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) before the District Labour Officer,

¶25

Ernakulam, on various dates in the year 2019.

¶26

The petitioners say that though a

¶27

conciliation was attempted under Section 22(1) of the Act, no settlement could be

¶28

arrived at; but that the Conciliation Officer has not intimated them of the

¶29

closure of the file and appears to have done so 'behind their back'.

¶30

learned counsel, Smt.Vykhari K.U., further

¶31

submitted that the fact of the closure of

¶32

WP(C).No.323 OF 2021 3

¶33

the conciliation was not intimated to them

¶34

and that her clients came to aware of this

¶35

only in the first week of November, 2020

¶36

during a settlement talk with the Management. She says that her clients, therefore, preferred statutory Appeals before the respondent on 11/11/2020, the copies of which have been produced on record

¶37

as Exts.P1 to P4; and prayed that the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

¶38

In response, the learned Senior

¶39

Government Pleader - Shri.Ravi Krishnan,

¶40

submitted that the statutory Appeals do not disclose when the proceedings were closed by the Conciliation Officer; but that if the petitioner only requires Exts.P1 to P4 to be

¶41

taken up and disposed of by the respondent,

¶42

there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so. He then prayed that

¶43

this Court may not make any affirmative declarations as to the entitlement of the

¶44

WP(C).No.323 OF 2021 4

¶45

petitioners to any relief and leave it to be decided by the competent Authority, in terms of law.

¶46

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶47

writ petition to the limited extent of directing the respondent to take up Exts.P1 to P4 and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners - either physically or – through video conferencing thus

¶48

culminating in appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

MC/6.1.2021

¶53

WP(C).No.323 OF 2021 5

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2020. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶57

MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Anoop Poulose v. Joint Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Poulose v. Joint Labour Commissioner

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

Shine Plast Vs Assistant State Tax Officer

Mohammed Musthafa Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sabu A.A. Vs the Authorized Officer

Prasannakumar Vs Hdfc Bank

Ashai Kumar Vs the Trivandrum Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

P C Sokan Vs the State of Kerala