M.Haridasan v. Dist.Labour Officer

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 ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. M.HARIDASAN S/O.CHATHAPPAN, MENOTHIL HOUSE, POST K.PURAM TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. R.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.SUKU PARAYAMBATT HOUSE, POST K.PURAM, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

3. E.REGHU, S/O.KOTHA, POST PANANGATTUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

4. V.V.SURESH, S/O.KUMARAN PEEYAMVEETTIL HOUSE, POST TANUR, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

5. K.VINOD, S/O.NARAYANAN KALATHINGAL HOUSE, POST K.PURAM, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

6. V.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR,VALAPPIL NELLIKKATT HOUSE, TANUR POST, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

7. A.K.AJITHKUMAR, MELEDATH HOUSE, POST TANUR, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

8. V.UNNI, VADAKKUMBATT HOUSE POST K.PURAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A ...CONTD...2

.. 2..

--------------------------------------- RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER MALAPPURAM.

2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE, TIRURANGADI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

3. C.ABDUL RAHIMAN,S/O.AHAMMED BAPPUTTY PROPRIETOR, NADAKKAVU TRADERS, TANUR TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

4. A.M.NAVAS,S/O.SAINUDHEEN ASSAMMAKKITHANAKATH HOUSE, KANNANKULAM ROAD, TANUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

5. N.P.RAHIM, NECHIKKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

6. N.NAZEER, NALAKATH HOUSE PANANGATTUR, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

R,R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN R, BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ KUNJACHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

--------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUING IDENTITY CARDS TO THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 8.9.04.

EXT.P1(a) COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUING IDENTITY CARDS TO THE 7TH PETITIONRE DATED 8.9.04.

EXT.P1(b) COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUING IDENTITY CARDS TO THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 8.9.04.

EXT.P2 COPY OF T HE REPRESENTATION BY THE DISTRICT SECRETARY OF BMS BEFORE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER DATED 21.05.07. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF WELFARE BOARD DATED 21.05.07.

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.07 IN W.P.(C) NO.15589/07. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DATED 15.10.2007.

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS BY THE POOL LEADER OF NPOOL TO THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM, DATED 13.12.07.

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21.12.07 FROM THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM, TO V.V. SURESH EXT.P8 COPY OF THE APPEAL BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 31.01.08. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.04.08.

EXT.P10 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22.09.08 BEFORE D.L.O. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE D.L.O, MALAPPURA DATED 4.11.08.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A to Judge SB

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.36543 of 2008 - A ====================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are employees, registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Wrokers' Rules 1981 (for brevity, 'the Rules) and also issued with identity cards under paragraph 6A of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (for brevity 'the Scheme'). The petitioners challenge the grant of registration to respondents 4 to 6 as permanent employees of the 3rd respondent. The respondents 4 to 6 were granted registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. An appeal was filed by the Union as is indicated in Ext.P10, which was rejected by Ext.P11 on the ground that, it is barred by limitation.

2. The petitioners challenge the said order of the appellate authority herein. At the outset, it has to be noticed that, the petitioners never challenged the

W.P.(C) No.36543 of 2008 - A registration of respondents 4 to 6 before the appellate authority. As aggrieved persons, they could have definitely moved an appeal. The Union is not entitled to invoke the appellate provision, since, this Court has held that no Union could be considered as an aggrieved person in Muhammed Shafeek v. District Labour Officer [2015

(1) KLT 314].

3. Further registration of workers under Rule 26A of the Rules by an establishment who employees them permanently, is an accepted practice allowed by the statute and affirmed by the Full Bench Decision of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732].

In such circumstance, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge