Allowed

Dipak Gogoi v. the Assistant Labour Officer

Kerala HC5 Jan 2023WP(C)/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioners' prayer to dispense with translated exhibits and permitted them to continue head load work pending registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, directing the Assistant Labour Officer to consider applications within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P1 to P9 applications within six weeks; petitioners permitted to do head load work till final orders on applications.

Dipak Gogoi Vs the Assistant Labour Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 15TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 DIPAK GOGOI

¶7

AGED 27 YEARS C/O. NAGESWAR GOPI, ANNAPUR, GOHPUR, SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN – 784 168

¶8

2 MINTU SAIKA AGED 30 YEARS C/O. RUPESHWAR SAIKA, PASCHIM NILAKH, NO.!, NILAKH KONCH, GOAN, ASSAM, PIN – 786 110

¶9

3 MOHAN BORUAH AGED 25 YEARS

¶10

RANGPURIA, SIMEN CHAPORI, NO.2, DHEMAJI, ASSAM,
PIN – 787 061

¶11

4 NAVA JYOTI GOGOI AGED 32 YEARS C/O. BIMAL GOGOI, VIII/ TOWN- NILAKH TARANIPATHAR, SILAPATHAT, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 110.

¶12

5 BIJOY GOGOI AGED 21 YEARS C/O. THANUKRISHNA GOGOI, PHUTHUKOBARI, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 110.

¶13

6 PRANABJIT GOGOI AGED 21 YEARS KUKHESWAR GOGOI, NO. 2, HOLAGURI, CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN – 785 673.

¶14

7 BINUD DEORI AGED 38 YEARS C/O. MINESWAR DSEORI, KAPAHATALI, DEURIGAON, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 110.

¶15

WP(C) No. 10 of 2023

¶16

¶17

8PRAKASH BORDOLOI
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. PURANJAY BORDOLOI, 10, NILAKH CHERIALI,
BETANIPAM, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN – 787 110.

¶18

9MRIDUL GOGOI
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. SHUBHA GOGOI, BALI, DHEMAJI, CHAPORI, ASSAM,
PIN – 787 061.

¶19

BY ADVS.

¶20

 K.B.ARUNKUMAR

¶21

 T.U.ZIYAD

¶22

RESPONDENTS:

¶23

1 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CIRCLE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682 030.

¶24

2 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 018.

¶25

3 THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, T.D. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 035.

¶26

4 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, SUB OFFICE, TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶27

PLAKUZHY BUILDING, HILL PALACE ROAD, CHATHARI,
TRIPUNITHURA, PIN – 682 301.

¶28

5 MARADU MARKET TRADERS ASSOCIATION REG. NO. ER-391/08, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ROOM NO. A/1, AUW MARKET, NETTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 040.

¶29

6JESAMMA. P.C
PROPRIETOR, SHOP ROOM NO. P3-29-30, AUW MARKET,
NETTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 040.

¶30

WP(C) No. 10 of 2023

¶31

¶32

7 SIBI N JOSEPH PROPRIETOR, SHOP ROOM NO. P3-13, 14, AUW MARKET, NETTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 040.

¶33

8BISTY JAISON
PROPRIETOR, SHOP ROOM NO. P3-15, AUW MARKET,
NETTOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 040.

¶34

BY ADVS.

¶35

 S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM)

¶36

 K.S.ARUN KUMAR

¶37

OTHER PRESENT:

¶38

ADV.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - SR. GP & ADV. K. S.
ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR R2

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶40

WP(C) No. 10 of 2023

¶41

¶42

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶43

---------------------------------------

¶44

WP(C) No. 10 of 2023

¶45

-------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2023

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶48

i. Pass an order dispensing with production of translated copies of Exhibits for the purpose of admission of the above writ petition;

¶49

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1 st respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibits P-1 to P-9 applications submitted by the petitioners after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶50

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 4 to refrain from deputing head load workers in the market for carrying out head load works of the respondents 6 to 8.

¶51

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 4 to permit petitioners to do head load works under the respective employers, the respondents 6 to 8,

¶52

and

¶53

v. such other order or direction deems fit and proper for this Hon'ble Court in facts and circumstances of the case.

¶54

WP(C) No. 10 of 2023

¶55

¶56

Petitioners are employed as Headload workers at Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu, in the shops of respondents Nos. 6 to 8. Petitioners made Exts.P1 to P9 applications for registration under Rule 26 A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, before the 1^st respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1^st respondent is not considering the same. The additional prayer in this writ petition is to allow the petitioners to continue in the work in the light of Ext.P10 judgment. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶57

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. No notice is necessary to respondents Nos. 4 to 8 at this stage. If they are aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, they are free to file a review petition before this Court.

¶58

The limited prayer of these writ petitioners is to consider Exts.P1 to P9 applications. That prayer can be allowed. As far as the 2^nd prayer is concerned, the point is covered in favour of the petitoners in the judgment dated 20/12/2022 in WA No. 1942/2022. It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment;

¶59

Having heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. N. Sukumaran, instructed by Adv. Sri. V.K. Balachandran, Standing Counsel for the Board Sri. K.S. Arun Kumar and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, we are of the view that the

¶60

WP(C) No. 10 of 2023

¶61

¶62

subject matter of the appeal is covered by our judgment in Kerala

¶63

Head Load Workers Welfare Board v. Hishad M.B. And Others

¶64

[ILR 2022 (3) Kerala 688] , the relevant directions of which are as

¶65

follows:

¶66

"An attached worker, on the other hand, does not have to be registered as a headload worker for doing headload work. He can be employed or engaged to do such work in the establishment of his employer and thereafter seek registration in terms of Rule 26A once he starts doing headload work in that establishment. Further, so long as he is in the employment or engagement of an employer and attached to the latter's establishment, he will not come under the coverage of the 1983 Scheme either. Clause 6 of the Scheme will therefore not be attracted in his case, to prevent him from working in a scheme covered area".

¶67

Going by the above, it can be seen that the prayer of the appellants that status quo ought to be maintained in the matter of head load work carried on by the appellants in the market pending disposal of their applications for registration by the first respondent has to be granted. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Appeal maintaining the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the application for registration preferred by the appellants and also ordering that pending such registration, the appellants will be permitted to be employed or engaged to do head load work under the employer.

¶68

Writ appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶69

In the light of the same, the 2^nd prayer also can be allowed. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶70

WP(C) No. 10 of 2023

¶71

¶72

(i) There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P1 to P9 applications, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the other affected parties.

¶73

(ii) Till final orders are passed in Exts.P1 to P9 applications,

¶74

respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are free to permit the petitioners to do head load works under the respondents Nos. 6 to 8.

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

AMR

WP(C) No. 10 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10/2023

¶81

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶82

`Exhibit P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2022 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `BY THE 1ST PETITIONER` `DENT`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2022 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `BY THE 2ND PETITIONER` `DENT`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2022 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `BY THE 3RD PETITIONER` `DENT`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2022 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `BY THE 4TH PETITIONER` `DENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2022 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `BY THE 5TH PETITIONER` `DENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2022 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `BY THE 6TH PETITIONER` `DENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2022 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `BY THE 7TH PETITIONER` `DENT`
`Exhibit P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2022 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `BY THE 8TH PETITIONER` `DENT.`
`Exhibit p9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `07.11.2022 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPON`	`APPLICATION DATED` `BY THE 9TH PETITIONER` `DENT`
`Exhibit P10`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `20.12.2022 IN W.A.NO.` `HON'BLE COURT`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `1942/2022 OF THIS`

Dipak Gogoi v. the Assistant Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Gogoi v. the Assistant Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tom Savio James, Vs the Secretary

Ramees Mohammad Vs the Secretary

Jasimol Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Jaseera Shafi Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Reshmi Vs District Collector

M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd. [Rep. by its Authorised Officer Antony Xavier.] Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer