The Chairman vs The Deputy Labour Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 622 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.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)

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)

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)

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)

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