Bobina Jacob vs The Labour Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 618 Ker

               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.348 OF 2021(P)


PETITIONER:

               BOBINA JACOB
               AGED 56 YEARS
               D/O.JACOB,
               CHAIKULATHUMYALIL HOUSE,
               KURAVALANGADU.P.O, KOTTAYAM,
               PIN-686 633.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
               SRI.R.REJI
               SRI.ARUN BOSE
               SMT.THARA THAMBAN
               SRI.B.BIPIN
               SMT.DEEPA SREENIVASAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER
               LABOUR COMMISSIONERATE ,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

      2        THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
               (ENFORCEMENT), COLLECTORATE.P.O,
               KOTTAYAM- 686 002.

      3        GEORGE ANTONY,
               MANAGING PARTNER,
               ANTONY'S TEXTILES,
               THALAYOLAPARAMBU,
               KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 605.


               SRI. RAVI KRISHNAN - 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.348 OF 2021(P)

                                  2



                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of January 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court

seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to

take all steps to ensure that the 3rd

respondent - Managing partner of M/s.Antony's

Textiles, pays her the eligible benefits and

also to reinstate her in service forthwith.

2. After praying as afore, the learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that his

client has already preferred Exts P3 and P5

petitions before the 2nd respondent and

alternatively prayed that the same be

directed to be taken up and disposed of at

the earliest.

3. Shri.Ravi Krishnan, learned Government

Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd

respondents, submitted that if the petitioner

only requires Exts.P3 and P5 to be taken up WP(C).No.348 OF 2021(P)

and disposed of, there is no legal impediment

in doing so; but prayed that this Court may

not make any affirmative declarations in

favour of the petitioner and allow the

competent Authority to take a decision

thereon as per law.

4. Even though this Court has not issued

notice to the 3rd respondent, I am of the view

that I will be justified in disposing of this

writ petition in the manner below, since it

will cause no prejudice to the said

respondent.

Resultantly, taking note of the limited

relief sought for by the petitioner, I order

this writ petition and direct the 2nd

respondent to take up Exts.P3 and P5

preferred by the petitioner and to dispose of

the same, after affording an opportunity of

being heard to him as also to the 3 rd

respondent - either physically or through WP(C).No.348 OF 2021(P)

video conferencing - culminating an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously

as is possible but not later than three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

I reiteratingly make it clear that since

this Court has not issued notice to the 3 rd

respondent, the 2nd respondent will complete

the afore exercise only after properly

notifying the said respondent and after

considering his version in terms of law.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Sn JUDGE WP(C).No.348 OF 2021(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2016

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2016

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2019

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.03.2020

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.12.2020.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Sn

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE