Allowed

Biju. K.B v. the District Labour Officer (General)

Kerala HC8 Mar 2023WP(C)/3116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that attached headload workers can continue working under their employers despite the establishment being in a schedule covered area, as they fall outside the restriction on scheme workers. The Court also ruled that pool leaders are not entitled to notice during appeals against attached workers registration under Rule 26C.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Labour Officer, Alappuzha to hear appeals within 8 weeks; Petitioners entitled to work as attached workers notwithstanding scheme-covered area.

Biju. K.B Vs the District 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 2398 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

`1`	`DIPAK GOGOI`
	`AGED 27 YEARS` `C/O. NAGESWAR GOPI, ANNAPUR,`
	`GOHPUR, SONITPUR, ASSAM., PIN - 784168`
`2`	`MINTU SAIKA`
	`AGED 30 YEARS` `C/O. RUPESHWAR SAIKA, PASCHIM NILAKH, NO.!,` `NILAKH KONCH, GOAN, ASSAM., PIN - 786110`
`3`	`MOHAN BORUAH` `AGED 25 YEARS` `RANGPURIA, SIMEN CHAPORI, NO.2,` `DHEMAJI, ASSAM., PIN - 787061`
`4`	`NAVA JYOTI GOGOI` `AGED 32 YEARS`
	`C/O. BIMAL GOGOI, VIII/ TOWN- NILAKH TARANIPATHAR,`
	`SILAPATHAT, DHEMAJI, ASSAM., PIN - 787110`
`5`	`BIJOY GOGOI` `AGED 21 YEARS`
	`C/O. THANUKRISHNA GOGOI, PHUTHUKOBARI,`
	`DHEMAJI, ASSAM., PIN - 787110`
`6`	`PRANABJIT GOGOI` `AGED 21 YEARS`
	`KUKHESWAR GOGOI, NO. 2, HOLAGURI,` `CHARAIDEO, ASSAM., PIN - 785673`
`7`	`BINUD DEORI`
	`AGED 38 YEARS`
	`C/O. MINESWAR DSEORI, KAPAHATALI,`
	`DEURIGAON, DHEMAJI, ASSAM., PIN - 787110`
`8`	`PRAKASH BORDOLOI`
	`AGED 22 YEARS`
	`S/O. PURANJAY BORDOLOI, 10,`
	`NILAKH CHERIALI, BETANIPAM, DHEMAJI,`
	`ASSAM., PIN - 787110`
`9`	`MRIDUL GOGOI`
	`AGED 30 YEARS`
	`S/O. SHUBHA GOGOI, BALI, DHEMAJI,`
	`CHAPORI, ASSAM., PIN - 787061`

¶6

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶7

¶8

BYADVS.
K.B.ARUNKUMAR
C.S.AJITHPRAKASH
PRASAD
T.U.ZIYAD

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1DISTRICTLABOUROFFICER
ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,KAKKANAD,KOCHI.,
PIN-682030
2THEASSISTANTLABOUROFFICER
ERNAKULAMDISTRICTCIRCLE,
KAKKANAD,KOCHI.,PIN-682030
3KERALAHEADLOADWORKERS'WELFAREFUNDBOARD
REPRESENTEDBYITSCHIEFEXECUTIVEOFFICER,
SRMROAD,ERNAKULAM.,PIN-682018
4THEERNAKULAMDISTRICTCOMMITTEEOFKERALAHEADLOAD
WORKERS'WELFAREFUNDBOARD
REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMAN,KUMMANCHERRYBUILDING,
T.D.ROAD,ERNAKULAM.,PIN-682035
5KERALAHEADLOADWORKERS'WELFAREFUNDBOARD
SUBOFFICE,TRIPUNITHURA,REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMAN,
PLAKUZHYBUILDING,HILLPALACEROAD,CHATHARI,
TRIPUNITHURA.,PIN-682301
6MARADUMARKETTRADERSASSOCIATION
REG.NO.ER-391/08,REPRESENTEDBYITSPRESIDENT,
ROOMNO.A/1,AUWMARKET,NETTOOR(PO),
ERNAKULAM.,PIN-682040
7JESAMMA.P.C
PROPRIETOR,SHOPROOMNO.P3-29-30,
AUWMARKET,NETTOOR(PO),ERNAKULAM.,
PIN-682040
8SIBINJOSEPH
PROPRIETOR,SHOPROOMNO.P3-13,14,AUWMARKET,
NETTOOR(PO),ERNAKULAM.,PIN-682040
9BISTYJAISON
PROPRIETOR,SHOPROOMNO.P3-15,AUWMARKET,
NETTOOR(PO),ERNAKULAM.,PIN-682040

¶11

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶12

¶13

10ADDL.R10
BIJUK.B
POOLLEADEROFPOOLNO.10NETTOORPOOL
S/O.BABUK.S,AGED32YEARSKANNOTHPARAMBU,
NETTOORPO,ERNAKULAM-682040.
[ISIMPLEADEDASPERORDERDATED16.02.2023IN
I.A.2/2023INWP(C)2398/2023.]
BYADVS.
K.S.ARUNKUMAR
C.S.AJITHPRAKASH
T.K.DEVARAJAN
M.B.SOORI
BABUM.
NIDHINRAJVETTIKKADAN
ANCYTHANKACHAN
GOURIKAILASH
KRISHNENDU.D

¶14

SMT.MABLECKURIAN,SR.GP

¶15

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON08.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).3116/2023,THECOURTONTHE
SAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶19

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
WEDNESDAY,THE8THDAYOFMARCH2023/17THPHALGUNA,1944
WP(C)NO.3116OF2023

¶20

PETITIONER/S:

¶21

BIJU.K.B
AGED32YEARS,
S/O.BABUKS,POOLLEADEROFPOOLNO.10,
NETTOORPOOL,MARADURESIDINGATKANNOTHUPARAMBU
NETTOORP.O.,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682040
BYADVS.
C.S.AJITHPRAKASH
T.K.DEVARAJAN
M.B.SOORI
BABUM.
NIDHINRAJVETTIKKADAN
ANCYTHANKACHAN
HAARISMOOSA
GOURIKAILASH
KRISHNENDU.D

¶22

RESPONDENT/S:

¶23

1THEDISTRICTLABOUROFFICER(GENERAL)/
THEAPPELLATEAUTHORITYUNDER26COFTHEKERALAHEAD
LOADWORKERSRULES1981,OFFICEOFTHEDISTRICTLABOUR
OFFICER,CIVILSTATION,KAKKANAD,PIN-682030
2THECHAIRMAN
ERNAKULAMDISTRICTCOMMITTEEOFTHEKERALAHEADLOAD
WORKERSWELFAREBOARD,KUMMENCHERRYBUILDING,
T.DROAD,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN-682035
3THECONVENER
SUBOFFICEOFTHEKERALAHEADLOADWORKERSWELFARE
BOARD,TRIPUNITHURA,WHITESHOPBUILDING,
HILLPALACEROAD,MARKETJUNCTION,
TRIPUNITHURA,PIN-682301

¶24

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶25

¶26

4RAJIBBHUYAN
BIJOYPURGAON,DHODANGCHAPORI,
JORHAT,ASSAM,PIN–785104

¶27

BYADVS.
K.S.ARUNKUMAR
PRASAD
SMT.MABLEC.KURIAN,SR.GP

¶28

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON08.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).2398/2023,THECOURTONTHE
SAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶29

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶30

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2398 of 2023 claim that they are headload workers employed at the Agricultural Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu. They contend that they are attached workers presently employed under the 7th, 8th, and 9th respondents. Exts.P22 to P24 registration certificates issued in Form B II of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, and countersigned by the ALO are relied on to substantiate that they are attached workers under their respective employers. They contend that their application for registration under Rule 26A was rejected by Exts.P12 to P14 orders.

¶33

All that is mentioned in the orders impugned is that the wholesale market is situated in a scheme-covered area, and in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18450/2015 dated 01.08.2019, only pool workers are entitled to carry out loading and unloading work. In the said circumstances, the petitioners are stated to have preferred separate appeals before the first respondent challenging the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. They have approached this Court seeking expeditious consideration of the appeals.

¶34

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶35

¶36

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3116 of 2023 is the pool leader of Pool No.X, Nettoor Pool. He states that he holds a 6A card under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, Rules and the Scheme. It is contended that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2398/2023 have preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority by invoking Rule 26C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rule, 1981. The solitary prayer is for issuance of directions to the Appellate Authority to issue notice to the petitioner, in his capacity as the Pool leader, while considering the appeals filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2398/2023.

¶37

As common issues are involved, W.P.(C) No.2398/2023 is treated as the main case and unless otherwise stated, parties and Exhibits shall be as referred as described in the said Writ Petition.

¶38

Sri. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel, submits that the order passed by the Assistant Labour Officer cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad [2022 (5) KLT 188]. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have preferred Exts.P16 to P18 appeals before the appellate authority under the Head Load Workers Rules 1981, along with a separate application for stay. The prayer is for expeditious

¶39

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶40

¶41

consideration of the appeals as well as the stay petition. The petitioners state that pending consideration of the appeals, they be permitted to continue to do headload works under their respective employers.

¶42

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the appellate authority is the District Labour officer, who incidentally is the Chairman of the Ernakulam District Committee of Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board. The very same officer who passed the order cannot sit in appeal over his own order. It is submitted that the District Labour Officer, Alappuzha District, can be directed to consider the appeals and take a decision.

¶43

Sri. Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, submitted that though he has no objection in directing the consideration of the appeals in accordance with the law, the request of the petitioners to work under their respective employers in their capacity as attached workers cannot be granted. It is submitted that the materials placed before this Court are vague and cannot be considered as valid documents to conclude that the petitioners are attached workers and they are working under the employers themselves. The learned counsel appearing for the Head Load Workers Welfare Board submitted that only the pool workers

¶44

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶45

¶46

could be permitted to do loading and unloading work in the area. It is further submitted that his party also be permitted to advance his contentions before the Appellate Authority.

¶47

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶48

The specific assertion of the petitioners is that petitioners 1 to 3 are attached workers of the 7th respondent, petitioners 4 to 6 are attached workers of the 8th respondent, and petitioners 7 to 9 are the attached workers of the 9th respondent. Exts.P22 to P24 are the registration certificates in Form B II of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, and countersigned by the ALO. The names of the petitioners find a place therein. The petitioners have also produced Exts.P25 to P27(b), salary certificates issued to the respective petitioners by the respective employer and countersigned by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P28 to Ext.P30 are the copies of the attendance registers maintained by the respective employers containing the names of the petitioners herein, which is also seen countersigned by the 2nd respondent. The records above clearly reveal that the petitioners herein have been working under the respective employers and

¶49

their names find a place in the registers maintained in the ordinary course of business and as mandated under Rule 27 of the Rules.

¶50

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶51

¶52

The main prayer sought for by the petitioners is for expeditious consideration of the appeals. I am of the view that the District Labour Officer, Alappuzha, can be directed to consider the appeal in an expeditious manner.

¶53

Now, the question is whether, during the pendency of the appeals, the petitioners can be permitted to work under their employer. The Division Bench of this Court in Nishad (Supra), after considering the provisions of the Act and the judgments rendered on the subject, had encapsulated the statutory scheme and had drawn the following conclusion.

¶54

Para 16 of the Division Bench held that --

¶55

16 . Our analysis of the statutory scheme leads us to draw the following conclusions:

¶56

a. The definition of headload worker under Section 2(m) of the Act makes a distinction between an attached worker and an unattached worker. While the former is a person who is employed or engaged by an employer, either directly or through a contractor, to work in a particular establishment, the latter is a person who is not engaged to work in any particular establishment.

¶57

b. The attached worker, at the time of his employment or engagement need not be registered in terms of Rule 26A. It is sufficient that he is engaged for the purpose of doing headload work in the establishment. This is so even if the establishment is located in a scheme covered area because the 1983 Scheme does not apply to an attached worker. The unattached worker, however, has to be a registered headload worker in view of the specific provisions of Section 9A of the Act.

¶58

c. An attached worker must do headload work in the particular establishment to which he is attached, before seeking registration as a

¶59

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶60

¶61

headload worker in terms of Rule 26A of the Rules. The enquiry contemplated under Rule 26A for granting registration is essentially a fact-finding exercise to ensure that the applicant for registration is actually doing headload work in the establishment concerned. The evidence in that regard must be found in the records maintained by the employer as mandated in Section 26 of the Act read with the Rules.

¶62

d. An unattached worker must first get himself attached to an establishment and do headload work therein. Only thereafter can he seek registration as a headload worker in terms of Rule 26A. The Act and Rules do not permit a person who is not attached to any establishment to apply for registration as a headload worker without first demonstrating his capacity to do headload work in an establishment.

¶63

e. While the above statutory scheme is apparent from a reading of the statutory provisions, it cannot be seen as one violating the fundamental rights of any person under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution since Article 19(6) makes the right subject to reasonable restrictions that can be imposed in the interests of the general public. A restriction in a welfare legislation that is intended to safeguard the health of a worker has to be seen as in the interests of the general public.

¶64

f. In the light of our findings as above, we do not approve of the view taken in Rajeev (supra) or Manzoor (supra) that even an unattached worker can apply for registration under Rule 26A without doing any headload work, so long as he has a good physique and is willing to do such work. The view in Rajeev (supra), that was followed in Manzoor (supra), was taken without noticing the distinction between attached and unattached workers in the definition of a headload worker, as also the fact that the pre-requisite of being a registered head load worker, for being allowed or required to work in a scheme covered area, applied only to a ‘headload worker who is not permanently employed by an employer or contractor’ i.e., an unattached worker. The said decisions do not lay down the correct law in this regard and hence we overrule the said decisions on the above point.

¶65

g. An attached worker, on the other hand, does not have to be registered as a headload worker for doing headload work. He can be

¶66

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶67

¶68

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.

¶69

h. When an application for registration is preferred by an attached worker, the enquiry by the registering authority must only be to ascertain whether the applicant is actually engaged in doing headload work in the establishment to which he is attached and if so, whether the headload work done by him is of predominant nature. The information in that regard can be gathered from the registers maintained by the employed in terms of Section 26 of the Act read with the Rules as also through a physical inspection at the premises of the establishment concerned. The registering authority cannot reject an application for registration on the ground that existing pool workers have raised objections to granting of such registrations. Unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration under Rule 26A to a worker who is attached to an establishment. It has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in Gangadharan (supra). Their objections can only be raised at a time when an attached worker, who gets registered in terms of Rule 26A relinquishes his employment or engagement with the establishment to which he was attached, and then seeks to join the scheme in the area concerned, as a registered but unattached worker.

¶70

12. This Court in Nishad (Supra) had held that the attached

¶71

worker, at the time of his employment or engagement need not be registered in terms of Rule 26A. It is sufficient that he is engaged for the purpose of doing headload work in the establishment. This is so even if the establishment is located in a scheme-covered area because the 1983 Scheme

¶72

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶73

¶74

does not apply to an attached worker. An attached worker must do headload work in the particular establishment to which he is attached before seeking registration as a headload worker in terms of Rule 26A of the Rules. An attached worker, 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.

¶75

Though Sri. Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel for the party respondents, argued that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Nishad (Supra) cannot be regarded as good law in view of the settled position in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732], the learned Counsel was not able to substantiate the same. Nishad (supra) was rendered, taking note of the observations and the law laid down in Raghavan (supra).

¶76

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶77

¶78

Now, the question is whether the pool leader is entitled to raise his objections in the appeal preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2398/2023. This question is also no longer integra. In Nishad(supra), this Court had held that unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration under Rule 26A to a worker who is attached to an establishment. It was held that they can raise their objections only when an attached worker, who gets registered in terms of Rule 26A relinquishes his employment or engagement with the establishment to which he was attached, and then seeks to join the scheme in the area concerned, as a registered but unattached worker.

¶79

The above issue can also be answered by relying on the statutory provisions. Rule 26C provides for appeal by any person aggrieved by an order of the registering authority. The said provision reads thus:

¶80

26C: Appeal

¶81

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Registering Authority under 25[sub-rules (3) or (4)] of Rule 26A may file an appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of such order before an officer not below the rank of District Labour Officer notified by Government as Appellate Authority in this behalf:

¶82

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶83

¶84

Provided that the Appellate Authority may admit an appeal filed after the expiry of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period: Provided further that no such appeal shall be admitted after a period of six months from the date of the order of the Registering Authority appealed against.

¶85

(2) On receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority may make such enquiries as he deems fit and after giving the employer if any and headload worker an opportunity of being heard and decide the appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the appeal. The decision of the appellate authority shall be final.

¶86

Rule 26C clearly states that only a person aggrieved by an order of the registering authority under sub rule (3) or (4) of Rule 26A is entitled to prefer an appeal. Sub Rule(2) of Rule 26C says that on receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority shall give notice to the employer if any, and headload worker an opportunity of being heard, decide the appeal. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 26A, details the manner in which the registering authority registers the name of a headload worker in the register of headload workers on being satisfied that the headload worker is eligible for registration. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 26A provides for the cancellation of registration of a person as a headload worker when fraud or mistake is noticed. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3116/2023 will not fall into the category of a person aggrieved as

¶87

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶88

¶89

required under Rule 26C. Furthermore, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 26C do not mandate that the pool worker should be heard. In that view of the matter, in view of the law laid down in Nishad (supra) and also the provisions of the Rules, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3116/2023 is not entitled to advance notice while hearing the appeal preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2398/2023.

¶90

Having considered the fact and circumstances, I am of the view that the observations made by the Division Bench in Nishad (Supra) would apply on all fours in the case of the petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions.

¶91

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to forward the appeals to the District Labour Officer, Alappuzha who shall hear the appeals as well as the

¶92

stay petition and take a decision in accordance with the law, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of eight weeks.

¶93

b) In tune with the directions issued by the Division

¶94

bench in Nishad (supra), the petitioners, in their capacity as attached workers under the respective

¶95

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶96

¶97

management, shall be entitled to be employed or

¶98

engaged to do such work in the establishment of the

¶99

respective employer, notwithstanding the fact that the

¶100

market is situated in a scheme-covered area.

¶101

Sd/-

¶102

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶103

NS

¶104

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶105

¶106

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3116/2023

¶107

PETITIONEREXHIBITS
ExhibitP1ATRUECOPYOFTHE6ACARDOFTHEPETITIONER
ISSUEDBYTHEKERALAHEADLOADWORKERS
WELFAREBOARD
ExhibitP2ATRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTINW.P.(C)
NO.18450/15DATED01.08.2019
ExhibitP3ATRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDBYTHE
REGISTERINGAUTHORITY/ASSISTANTLABOUR
OFFICER,NO.616/22DATED22.12.2022
ExhibitP4ATRUECOPYOFTHEAPPEALMEMORANDUMDATED
11.01.2023FILEDBEFORETHEAPPELLATE
AUTHORITYUNDERRULE26COFTHEKERALAHEAD
LOADWORKERSRULES1981
ExhibitP5ATRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONSUBMITTED
BYTHEPETITIONERTOTHEDISTRICTLABOUR
OFFICERDATED03.01.2023
ExhibitP6ATRUECOPYOFTHEINTERIMORDERINW.P(C)
NO.5827/2020DATED27/02/2020
ExhibitP7ATRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTINW.P.(C)
NO.37341/2022DATED22/11/2022

¶108

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶109

¶110

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2398/2023

¶111

PETITIONEREXHIBITS

¶112

ExhibitP1THETRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
07.11.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STPETITIONER
ExhibitP2THETRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
07.11.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE2NDPETITIONER
ExhibitP3THETRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
07.11.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE3RDPETITIONER
ExhibitP4THETRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
07.11.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE4THPETITIONER
ExhibitP5THETRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
07.11.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE5THPETITIONER
ExhibitP6THETRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
07.11.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE6THPETITIONER
ExhibitP7THETRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
07.11.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE7THPETITIONER
ExhibitP8THETRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
07.11.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE8THPETITIONER
ExhibitP9THETRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
07.11.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE9THPETITIONER
ExhibitP10THETRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED
20.12.2022INW.A.NO.1942/2022OFTHIS
HON'BLECOURT
ExhibitP11THETRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED
05.01.2023INW.P.(C)NO.10/2023
ExhibitP12THETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.738/022DATED
22.12.2022ISSUEDTOPETITIONERS1TO3
ASSISTANTLABOUROFFICER
ExhibitP13THETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.737/2022DATED
22.12.2022ISSUEDTOPETITIONERS4TO6I
ExhibitP14THETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.736/2022DATED
22.12.2022ISSUEDTOPETITIONERS7TO9
ExhibitP15THETRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED
13.01.2023INCON.CASENO.79/2023

¶113

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶114

¶115

`Exhibit`	`P16`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16.1.2023` `FILED AGAINST EXHIBIT P-12 ORDER`
`Exhibit`	`P17`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16.1.2023` `FILED AGAINST EXHIBIT P-13 ORDER`
`Exhibit`	`P18`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16.1.2023` `FILED AGAINST EXHIBIT P-14 ORDER`
`Exhibit`	`P19`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED` `16.1.2023 FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P-16` `APPEAL`
`Exhibit`	`P20`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED` `16.1.2023 FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P-17` `APPEAL`
`Exhibit`	`P21`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED` `16.1.2023 FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P-18` `APPEAL`
`Exhibit`	`P-22`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE/REGISTRATION` `DATED 26.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `IN FAVOUR OF 7TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P-23`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE/REGISTRATION` `DATED 26.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `IN FAVOUR OF 8TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-24`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE/REGISTRATION` `DATED 26.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `IN FAVOUR OF 9TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-25`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 7TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-25(a)`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 7TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-25 (b)`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 7TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-26`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE 8TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-26 (a)`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE 8TH` `RESPONDENT`

¶116

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶117

¶118

`Exhibit P-26 (b)`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER BY THE 8TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P-27`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER BY THE 9TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P-27 (a)`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER BY THE 9TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P-27 (b)`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER BY THE 9TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P-28`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF` `ATTENDANCE REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE` `RESPONDENTS 7 EVIDENCING THE ENGAGEMENT OF` `THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3.`
`Exhibit P- 29`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF` `ATTENDANCE REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE` `RESPONDENTS 8 EVIDENCING THE ENGAGEMENT OF` `THE PETITIONERS 4 TO 6.`
`Exhibit P-30`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF` `ATTENDANCE REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE` `RESPONDENTS 9 EVIDENCING THE ENGAGEMENT OF` `THE PETITIONERS 7 TO 9.`
`Exhibit P-31`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE` `DATED 24.1.2023 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT` `EVIDENCING THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE PETITIONERS` `1 TO 3.`
`Exhibit P-32`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED` `24.1.2023 BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT EVIDENCING` `THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE PETITIONERS 4 TO 6.`
`Exhibit P-33`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED` `24.1.2023 ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT` `EVIDENCING THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE PETITIONERS` `7 TO 9.`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit R3(a)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO:` `18450 OF 2015 DATED 01/08/2019 .`

¶119

W.P.(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023

¶120

¶121

ExhibitR3(b)ATRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTINWP(C)
NO.23725,24177,25887OF2019DATED
04/11/2019
ExhibitR3(c)ATRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGEMENTSWP(C)NO:
1694/2023DATED19/01/2023

Biju. K.B v. the District Labour Officer (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju. K.B v. the District Labour Officer (General)

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

Varghese a, Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board

M.Ganesan Vs the Chief Inspector of Plantation

Murugan S. Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board

Dipak Gogoi Vs District Labour Officer

Ajith.P. Raju Vs Nidhin Jose

Padmavathy P Komerath Vs Union of India