High Court of KeralaWP(C)/30516/2007disposed of

Antony Mathew v. The Chief Executive, Kerala Head Load

2015-03-12Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/21ST PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 30516 of 2007 (G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :

------------------------ ANTONY MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, VETTUKUZHAKUDI, NADUKANI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, MANAGER & PRINCIPAL OFFICER, EASTERN AGENCIES, ADIMALI.

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.SURESH RESPONDENT(S) :

---------------------------- THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI-18.

BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE, S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 30516 of 2007 (G) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.11594/04 DATED 15.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2:

TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.19777/05 DATED 09.03.2006 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P3:

TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.21434/06 DATED 11.08.2006 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P4:

TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.09.2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

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

Msd.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 30516 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner contends that the petitioner in the writ petition is not covered by the term "establishment" under the Headload Workers Act while the Union of headload workers asserted otherwise. On a settlement arrived Ext.P1 was issued. Subsequently the same is said to have been withdrawn by Ext.4. There was a stay granted by this Court. None of the respondents appear. In such circumstance, there would be no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending. Writ petition would be disposed of making the interim order absolute. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// //P.A to Judge//