Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 338 Ker
Judgement Date : 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
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!