Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Anoop Poulose vs Joint Labour Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 338 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 338 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2021

Kerala High Court
Anoop Poulose vs Joint Labour Commissioner on 6 January, 2021
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.323 OF 2021(M)


PETITIONERS:

      1        ANOOP POULOSE
               AGED 45 YEARS
               S/O. T.K, POULOSE, THENIMOOLAYIL, BRAHMAPURAM P.O,
               AMBALAMEDU, ERNAKULAM - 682303.

      2        BINOY C.K
               AGED 38 YEARS
               S/O. KUMARAN, CHERIYAMOOLA HOUSE, NAVODAYA,
               THENGODE P.O, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM - 682030.

      3        RAJESH K.R
               AGED 40 YEARS
               S/O. C.P. RAJAN, KEERELIMALAYIL, KUSUMAGIRI P.O,
               ERNAKULAM - 682030.

      4        VIJU
               AGED 42 YEARS
               S/O. VELAYUDHAN, CHATHRATTIL VEEDU, NAVODAYA,
               THENGODU P.O, KAKKANADU- 682030.

               BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN

RESPONDENT:

               JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
               CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM - 682030.



               SRI. RAVI KRISHNAN - GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.323 OF 2021                        2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that they were

Drivers of Marthoma Educational Society,

Kochi and that they were terminated from

their services illegally, thus constraining

them to raise disputes under Section 2(k) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for

short) before the District Labour Officer,

Ernakulam, on various dates in the year

2019.

2. The petitioners say that though a

conciliation was attempted under Section

22(1) of the Act, no settlement could be

arrived at; but that the Conciliation

Officer has not intimated them of the

closure of the file and appears to have done

so 'behind their back'.

3. The petitioners, through their

learned counsel, Smt.Vykhari K.U., further

submitted that the fact of the closure of

the conciliation was not intimated to them

and that her clients came to aware of this

only in the first week of November, 2020

during a settlement talk with the

Management. She says that her clients,

therefore, preferred statutory Appeals

before the respondent on 11/11/2020, the

copies of which have been produced on record

as Exts.P1 to P4; and prayed that the same

be directed to be taken up and disposed of

at the earliest.

4. In response, the learned Senior

Government Pleader - Shri.Ravi Krishnan,

submitted that the statutory Appeals do not

disclose when the proceedings were closed by

the Conciliation Officer; but that if the

petitioner only requires Exts.P1 to P4 to be

taken up and disposed of by the respondent,

there does not appear to be any legal

impediment in doing so. He then prayed that

this Court may not make any affirmative

declarations as to the entitlement of the

petitioners to any relief and leave it to be

decided by the competent Authority, in terms

of law.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition to the limited extent of

directing the respondent to take up Exts.P1

to P4 and dispose of the same, after

affording an opportunity of being heard to

the petitioners - either physically or

through video conferencing - thus

culminating in appropriate orders thereon,

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

JUDGE

MC/6.1.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2020. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL



MC

                       (TRUE COPY)               PA 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