A.Mohammed Khalid vs The Assistant Labour Officer on 8 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
A.Mohammed Khalid vs The Assistant Labour Officer on 8 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 28190 of 2007(E)


1. A.MOHAMMED KHALID, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ALATHUR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :08/10/2007

 O R D E R
                      S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                 -------------------------------
                 W.P.(C)No.28190 OF 2007
                ----------------------------------
              Dated this the 8th day of October, 2007

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an employer doing business in the

Thenkurissi Panchayath of Palakkad District. He has his own

workers for doing loading and unloading work in his

establishment, who are arrayed as respondents 2 to 6 in the

writ petition. The said workers have applied before the 1st

respondent for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala

Headload Workers Rules. The petitioner complains of delay

in considering the said applications. Initially, I had raised a

doubt as to whether the petitioner can file this writ petition

seeking disposal of applications filed by the workers. With

the help of the decision in Perfect Engineers and

Contractors Vs. The Assistant Labour Officer (2004(1)

KLT SN 71), the petitioner asserts that he does have right

to do so. On a reading of the said decision, I am also

W.P.(c)No.28190/07 2

satisfied that the petitioner can seek his remedy by filing

this writ petition.

2. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the

1st respondent to consider Exts.P3 to P7 filed by

respondents 2 to 6 expeditiously.

3. Sri. Rajesh Sivaramankutty advocate stated to

be representing the headload workers professing

allegiance to the CITU and INTUC Unions of headload

Workers of the area who intends to seek themselves to be

impleaded in the writ petition, submits that those unions

also may be directed to be heard in the matter. The

petitioner submits that they have no right to be so heard

under the Act and Rules. After having heard both sides, I

dispose of this writ petition with the following directions.

The 1st respondent shall consider and pass

appropriate orders on Exts.P3 to P7 as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. While disposing of the

same, the Union representatives of the Headload Workers

of the area professing allegiance to CITU and INTUC also

W.P.(c)No.28190/07 3

may given notice of hearing. However, I make it clear

that it would be open to the petitioner to object to the

locus standi of the unions to object to the claim of the

workers seeking registration and the A.L.O shall decide

the question as to whether they have locus standi in the

matter. The mere fact that I have directed issue of notice

of hearing to the unions would not stand in the way of the

A.L.O. deciding that question also.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd

W.P.(c)No.28190/07 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *