High Court of KeralaWP(C)/30867/2013disposed of

Ajith Mathew v. Nikhil.K.S

2015-11-13Honourable Mr. Justice Shaji P.Chaly6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/22ND KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 30867 of 2013 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ AJITH MATHEW MODIYIL PARAPPURATH, VADKKUMURIYIL, ALA P.O.

CHENGANNUR-689121.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE RESPONDENTS:

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

1. NIKHIL.K.S S/O. SREENIVASAN, MODIYIL, ALA NORTH PO CHENGANNUR-689121.

2. THE PUNCHA SPECIAL OFFICER & DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY LABOUR & REHABILITATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SOJAN JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 30867 of 2013 (G) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12-3-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFIER, ALAPPUZHA. P2. TRUE COPY STATEMENT DATED 2-5-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5-8-2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7-7-2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7-7-2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smv

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2015

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent and consequent actions pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 demands under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

2. Brief facts for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows:

3. First respondent has filed Ext.P1 complaint before the 2nd respondent contending that out of Rs.350/- payable as wages to the 1st respondent, an amount of Rs.100/- was retained by the petitioner and accordingly an amount of Rs.1,49,000/- was due to the 1st respondent from the petitioner.

4. Pursuant to Ext.P1 complaint the petitioner entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 objection refuting the allegations, claims and statements contained in Ext.P1 and contended that 1st respondent has worked with the petitioner for sometime as

Agricultural Worker, sometime as Helper in a lorry and intermittently he has left the service of the petitioner without assigning any reason. Whenever 1st respondent turned out for work, petitioner has provided work to him but at no point of time the wages that was payable to the 1st respondent was detained by the petitioner. Therefore, it was contended that the 1st respondent is not entitled to any claim raised as per Ext.P1.

5. However, the 2nd respondent after considering Ext.P1 complaint and Ext.P2 objection has passed an order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order and consequential demands made thereunder, this Writ Petition is preferred by the petitioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.T.C.Krishna, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Sojan James and learned counsel for the first respondent Sri. N. Ashok Kumar.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, the sole point that is to be considered by this Court to arrive at a conclusion is whether there is any illegality or irrationality in Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the above view in my mind, I perused Ext.P3 and find that even

though 2nd respondent has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the 1st respondent, no reasons are assigned by the 2nd respondent as to how he has arrived at such a conclusion. It is clear from Ext.P3 order that no evidence was adduced by the 1st respondent to substantiate his case that he is entitled to the amounts claimed in Ext.P1 complaint. However, without any basis the 2nd respondent had held that 1st respondent is entitled to an amount of Rs.75,000/- taking into account his physical condition also. I do not think that the said order passed by the 2nd respondent will stand the test of law. According to me, the decision arrived at by the 2nd respondent is without any sort of evidence before it. Therefore, Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed. Accordingly I do so. Needless to say Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices issued pursuant to Ext.P3 will not survive. Therefore the said demands are also set aside.

8. But however there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take back to its file Ext.P1 complaint, and Ext.P2 objection and re-consider the matter after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. Petitioner as well as the 1st respondent will be entitled to

produce necessary documentary evidence and adduce oral evidence before the 2nd respondent so as to substantiate their respective cases. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after taking into account the directions contained above.

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE //true copy// P.A. To Judge smv 13.11.2015