High Court Kerala High Court

P.Vinu vs Chairman on 2 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.Vinu vs Chairman on 2 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5496 of 2010(J)


1. P.VINU S/O PACHAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHAIRMAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :02/03/2010

 O R D E R
                     K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
                    -----------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C) No.5496 of 2010
                    -----------------------------------------
                Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order of the Chairman of the

Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board cancelling the registration

granted to the petitioner. The Standing Counsel for the Kerala

Head Load Workers Welfare Board Mr.Koshy George has filed a

statement pointing out that Ext.P11 order was passed strictly in

compliance with the procedure stipulated by clause-34 of the Head

Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme,

1983. He has also produced Annexures-A & B to support his

contention. According to the counsel, against Ext.P11, an appeal is

provided by the scheme as per clause-36 thereof. Therefore, the

petitioner has an effective alternative remedy to challenge Ext.P11.

2. I notice from clause-36 that an appellate remedy has been

provided against Ext.P11. However, the appeal is to be filed within a

period of 15 days of receipt of the order. The contention of the

petitioner is that the time stipulated has already expired and that

there is no provision for condonation of delay in the scheme.

wpc No.5496/2010 2

3. Since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to

challenge Ext.P1, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained without the

petitioner having exhausted the said remedy. However, since the

petitioner ought to have filed the appeal within 15 days of receipt of

Ext.P11, I feel that the petitioner can be permitted to prefer an appeal

without the same being dismissed on the technical ground that it is

filed beyond time. The time that the petitioner had been pursuing

this Writ Petition, can be excluded for the purpose of determining

whether the appeal is filed within time.

4. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of

directing the petitioner to file an appeal against Ext.P11 order in

accordance with clause-36 of the scheme. If such an appeal is filed

within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be

entertained, considered and disposed of on the merits, treating the

same to have been filed within the prescribed time. The Committee

shall make every endeavor to dispose of the appeal expeditiously

and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of filing

of the appeal.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge

css/