Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

I K Velukutty vs The Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1267 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1267 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 January, 2021

Kerala High Court
I K Velukutty vs The Registrar on 13 January, 2021
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA,
                         1942
          RP.No.936 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 35612/2008
         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.35612/2008(M)
                     DATED 07.06.2018
                        ----------

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

            I K VELUKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN,
            IRINJALAKUDAKARAN HOUSE, MANNUTHY,
            THRISSUR-680 651.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
            SRI.MANU GOVIND

RESPONDENT/S:

     1      THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL
            UNIVERSITY, KAU P.O., VELLANIKKARA,
            THRISSUR-680 656.

     2      THE DEAN, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL
            SCIENCE, SANTOSH NAGAR, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-
            680 651.

            R1 BY SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC, KERALA
            AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
            R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP 936/2020 in
W.P.(C).No.35612/2008
                                       -:2:-




                                     ORDER

Dated this the 13th day of January 2021

This review petition was filed by the respondent

in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by

the Kerala Agricultural University challenging an

order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under

the Minimum Wages Act.

2. The review petitioner, who was the

respondent, admittedly is a Mess worker, engaged in

the Hostel attached to the University by the Mess

Committee. The contention of the review petitioner

is that this Court, without adverting to the rival

contentions, rendered the judgment under review,

mainly following the judgment of the Division Bench

in W.A.No.1225/1994, dated 1/11/1994, wherein a

similar issue relating to the claim of mess workers

was considered in respect of the same University.

The Division Bench, after adverting to the relevant

regulations, held that the mess workers cannot be

treated as an employee of the University. RP 936/2020 in W.P.(C).No.35612/2008

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed quashing

the proceedings of the Deputy Labour Commissioner.

3. The review petitioner argued that the Apex

Court in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture &

Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital vs. State of U.P. and

Others [(2000) 7 SCC 109] upheld the claim of workers

of Cafeteria and held that if Cafeteria is required to maintain the regulations of a residential

university and the cafeteria should be compulsorily

used by the resident-students, the workers of such

Cafeteria are employees of the University.

4. Pointing out the above judgment of the Apex

Court, the learned counsel for the review petitioner urged for reviewing the judgment. It is also pointed

out that it is an apparent error on the part of this

Court as this Court failed to note the Apex Court

Judgment, which was rendered much before the judgment

under review.

5. It is to be noted that the judgment of the

Apex Court has arisen from an Award of the Labour

Court. The Labour Court can very well adjudicate as

to the nature of the relationship between the RP 936/2020 in W.P.(C).No.35612/2008

employee of the Cafeteria and that of the University.

The statutory provision under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 enables the Labour Court to adjudicate upon

such issues. This Court cannot override such

adjudication by invoking writ jurisdiction. The

Deputy Labour Commissioner should not have passed the

order impugned in the writ petition. If the review

petitioner is having any remedy before the Labour

Court and any other forum under the Labour enactment,

he is free to avail such remedy in accordance with

law. The judgment in G.B. Pant University of

Agriculture & Technology case (supra) cannot be a

ground to review the judgment for the reasons stated

above. Accordingly, the review petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE ms RP 936/2020 in W.P.(C).No.35612/2008

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULES, FRAMED BY ORDER NO ACD A 3-79731/31/78/KAU/D DATED 11.12.1980 AND ORDER NO ACD. A3- 46841/80/D. DIS DATED 9.8.1981 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BG/A1/140/88/FAW DATED 6.1.1988 ISSUED BY THE FINANCIAL (BUDGET) WING OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO GA/F3/8841/94 DATED 30.1.1997 OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.1.2001 PERTAINING TO THE SANCTIONING OF MINIMUM WAGES TO MESS WORKERS INCLUDING THE REVIEW PETITIONER HEREIN, FOR A SUBSEQUENT ENGAGEMENT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE R1(A) : COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.196/2016/LBR DATED 21.12.2016.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter