High Court Kerala High Court

C.V. Jolly vs Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare … on 15 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
C.V. Jolly vs Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare … on 15 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 673 of 2010()


1. C.V. JOLLY, AGED 56 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE,

3. CHAIRMAN,

4. A.K. PIOUS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :15/06/2010

 O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

W.A.No.673 OF 2010

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010

ORDER/JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.

Appellant, who is stated to be the President of Vyapari Vyavasayi

Ekopana Samity of Varapuzha ( Town Unit) has filed this appeal

impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ

petition filed by him.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found

that the grievance of the appellant that his name had been excluded

from the panel of nominees representing the employers in his area

( Varapuzha Town Unit) was vitiated by extraneous consideration,

malafides, political bias etc. could not be substantiated by him.

Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

3. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge

was that his organisation of which he is the President, had suggested

his name as one of the representatives of the employers in Paravur

Advisory Committee. Ext.P8 is stated to be the said list of nominees.

WA.No.673/2010 2

However, according to the appellant, the District Committee tinkered

with the said list and excluded his name and prepared a panel

consisting of five members as can be seen from Annexure A produced

along with the statement filed by the Board (respondent No.1).

4. The learned Single Judge after considering the above

contentions took the view that the appellant had no right to insist that

he should be nominated as a representative of the employers in the

Advisory Committee. In other words, learned Judge held that the

District Committee was free to prepare a list as it deemed fit, and

dismissed the writ petition.

5. When this appeal came up for consideration, we directed

Sri.Koshy George, learned standing counsel for the Board, to produce

the relevant files.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned standing counsel. Having perused the entire materials available

before us and also having heard learned counsel at length, we are of the

view that the contentious issue raised by the appellant has to be

necessarily decided by the Board itself.

WA.No.673/2010 3

7. Sri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the appellant will be satisfied, if the issue is relegated to the Board

for a final decision . But he prays that the Board may be directed to

consider Ext.P8 along with Annexure A before taking a final decision

since according to him, his nomination by the local unit will have to be

given due weight and credence as otherwise the whole idea of

democratic functioning of the system will be in peril.

We do not find any reason why the Board cannot have an open

mind in this matter. Learned standing counsel for the Board also

submits that the issue will be given a quietus by the Board in a just and

fair manner. He further submits that Ext.P8 will be kept in view by the

Board when Annexure A list forwarded by the District Committee is

taken up for consideration. However, learned standing counsel points

out that it is for the Board to decide whether such an Advisory

Committee is necessary in the area in question. We do not propose to

make any comment on this aspect, since the Board may have the final

say in these matters subject of course to the condition that any such

decision has to pass the test of enquiry and fair play. A final decision

WA.No.673/2010 4

in the manner as indicated above shall be taken by the Board as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The files shall be returned to

the learned standing counsel.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

sv.

WA.No.673/2010 5