IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.352 OF 2021(T)
PETITIONER:
THE CHAIRMAN,
PAYYANUR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD,
PAYYANUR MALL, PAYYANUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
SRI.S.S.ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER,
DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE,
KANNUR, PIN-670 002.
2 THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
KANNUR, PIN-670 002.
SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.352 OF 2021(T)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of January 2021 The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P4 on various grounds, but primarily asserting that it has been issued without even affording him an opportunity of being heard by the 1st respondent - Deputy Labour Officer, Kannur. He, through his learned counsel Shri.M.V.Amareshan, contends that Ext.P4 has been issued without even adverting to Ext.P2 request or Ext.P3 objections and that it has now illegally fastened a huge financial obligation on him illegally.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner adds to the above submissions by saying that Ext.P4 is not a speaking order and that it is issued in a printed format, which makes it evident that none of the contentions of his client have been WP(C).No.352 OF 2021(T) 3 considered or even adverted to. He thus predicates that Ext.P4 is therefore, vitiated from the touch stone of the declarations of law in Ozone Granite(P) Ltd(M.s) Perumbavoor V/s Intelligence Officer, commercial Taxes and other [2018 (3) KHC 906] and that since it has been issued without hearing his client, it is bad and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daffodils Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. State of U.P [2020 (1) KLT SN 2 (c.3) (S.C)] Shri. Amareshan, therefore, prays that Ext.P4 be set aside and the Authority be directed to reconsider the matter following due procedure.
3. In response, Shri.Ravi Krishanan, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submitted that though Ext.P4 is in the nature of a printed format, it has been issued by the 1st respondent - Deputy WP(C).No.352 OF 2021(T) 4 Labour Officer after considering all the relevant aspects and objections of the petitioner. He submitted that Ext.P4 is a reasoned order and that it also contains the answer of the Authority to the objections of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on the afore lines, it is indubitable from Ext.P4 that it has been issued in a printed format and that it does not speak about any of the contentions of the petitioner nor does it reflect any consideration of the same. Further, Ext.P4 is also silent as to whether the petitioner has been heard; and to a pointed question from me, Shri.Ravi Krishnan also concedes this.
5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that Ext.P4 cannot find favour in law and that the 1st respondent must reconsider the WP(C).No.352 OF 2021(T) 5 matter and issue a fresh order as per law.
In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of the dialectical contentions of the parties at this stage and solely for the reason that Ext.P4 cannot be granted approval by this Court for the reasons above, I order this writ petition and set aside the same; with a concomitant direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh order thereon, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after considering Ext.P3 - returns/objections filed by him, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN Sn JUDGE WP(C).No.352 OF 2021(T) 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE BEARING NO.E4/895/16/TPBA DATED 22.12.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF RETURNS IN REF. NO.E4/895/16/TPBA DATED 8.1.2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN REF.
NO.E4/895/16/TPBA TO CONDONE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN DATED 8.1.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER BEARING NO.E4/895/16/TPBA DATED 14.1.2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 12.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL Sn //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE