Shanmughan A.S. vs The Kerala Head Load Workers … on 21 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 465 of 2007()


1. SHANMUGHAN A.S., KURATHIKATTIL VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,

3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,

4. P.Y.AGASTI, PALLIPURATHUKARAN HOUSE,

5. ROBERT K.E., KANJIRATHINKA HOUSE,

6. K.I.PAULSON, KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE,

7. P.D.ABI CHEMBUKKAVU HOUSE,

8. DANBY K.A., KURUTHIKULANGARA HOUSE,

9. JAISON PAUL, CHACKALAKKAL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :21/12/2009

 O R D E R
                   C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                           V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
                   --------------------------------------------
                         W. A. No. 465 OF 2007
                   --------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009

                                JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Question raised in the Writ Appeal is on the inter-se seniority of

the appellant with respondents 4 to 9. The appellant’s case is that

though he applied for registration as a headload worker much earlier

than the date on which respondents 4 to 9 applied for registration, those

respondents were first granted registration and appellant was granted

registration much thereafter. The learned single Judge without going

into the merits of the case directed the appellant to raise a dispute under

Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act for decision by the

statutory authority. Registration is granted by the Asst. Labour Officer

and being a higher authority, the District Labour Officer could

certainly settle the dispute under Rule 26(c) of the Rules is the case of

the appellant. We find force in this contention because without any

reference, the matter in our opinion would be settled by the DLO after

calling for records and report from the ALO. However, counsel for the

2

appellant and standing counsel for the first respondent submitted that

by virtue of judgment of this Court in another case, registration granted

to respondents 4 to 9 stands cancelled. Therefore as of now, the

appellant’s grievance against inter-se seniority does not survive as the

registration granted to respondents 4 to 9 is cancelled. Counsel

appearing for the appellant expressed the apprehension that if the

judgment of this Court is reversed by the Supreme Court, registration

originally granted to respondents 4 to 9 will stand restored and

appellant’s grievance will again get revived. We feel in this contigency

the appellant should be free to raise a dispute before the DLO under

Rule 26(c) of the Rules and it is for the DLO to settle the dispute after

issuing notice and after hearing the contesting parties.

We dispose of the Writ Appeal with direction to DLO to settle

the dispute in case it arises as stated above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(V.K. MOHANAN)
Judge.

kk

3