T.P.Tiles Centre vs The Assistant Labour Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 18171 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
                                   &
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
     FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                          WA NO. 1107 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14458/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                           KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:

          T.P.TILES CENTRE
          NEAR MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KALPETTA POST, WAYANAD-673121,
          REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, C.ABUBACKER,
          S/O.MAMMAD, AGED 59 YEARS, CHENAKKAL HOUSE, KALLUVAYAL,
          SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673592.
          BY ADVS.
          R.SUDHISH
          M.MANJU


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
          KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121.
    2     KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
          REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WAYANAD DISTRICT
          COMMITTEE, PALAKUNNUMMAL BUILDING, ANAPALAM JUNCTION,
          MUNDERI ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121.

          ADDL.R3 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED.
    3     ADDL.R3 DISRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
          KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
          IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED
          3.09.2021 IN WA 1107/2021
OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.THOMAS
          ABRAHAM

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Writ Appeal No.1107/2021
                                      2

     ALEXANDER THOMAS & A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ.
  ==============================================
                Writ Appeal No.1107/2021
    (Arising out of the judgment dated 20.7.2021 in W.P.(C) No.14458/2021)
  ==============================================
           Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2021


                             JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The appellant herein had filed the instant Writ Petition

(Civil) No.14453/2021 so as to challenge Ext.P21 order dated

5.7.2021 issued by the 1st respondent Assistant Labour Officer

rejecting the request of the petitioner for registration of his

employees under Rule 26A of the Head Load Workers Rules,

1981 framed under the Head Load Workers Act.

2. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides has

rendered the impugned judgment on 20.7.2021 dismissing W.P.

(C)No.14453/2021 on the ground that the writ petition need not

be entertained as the petitioner has an alternative remedy. It is

aggrieved thereby that the petitioner in the Writ Petition has

filed this intra court appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala Writ Appeal No.1107/2021

High Court Act.

3. Heard Sri.R.Sudhish, learned Counsel for the

appeallant in the Writ Appeal/petitioner in the W.P.(C),

Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatti, learned Senior Government Pleader

appearing for R1 and R3 in the Writ Appeal/respondents in the

W.P.(C) and Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel

for the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Fund Board

appearing for R2.

4. Now we are appraised that the appellant has filed

Annexure A1 statutory appeal dated 23.7.2021 before the 3 rd

respondent, District Labour Officer, Kalpetta, who is the

statutory appellate authority, so as to challenge, the impugned

Ext.P21 rejection order dated 5.7.2021 issued by the 2 nd

respondent Assistant Labour Officer.

5. Hence, without getting into the merits of the matter

in any manner, it is ordered that the 3rd respondent District

Labour Officer, the appellate authority will immediately take up Writ Appeal No.1107/2021

for consideration the matters in Annexure A1 dated 23.7.2021,

after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the

appellant herein and the 2nd respondent Kerala Head Load

Workers Welfare Fund Board through their authorized

representatives or authorized counsel if any, without much

delay, within four weeks, at any rate, within six weeks from the

production of certified copy of this judgment. While disposing

of the said appeal, the third respondent appellate authority

bear in mind the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in

Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998(2) KLT

732]. It is for the appellant to produce a photocopy of reported

text of the said decision by this Court for the perusal of the 3 rd

respondent appellant authority along with the certified copy of

the judgment before all the three respondents for information

and necessary action. Accordingly, the impugned judgment

rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(c)

No.14453/2021 will stand modified. With these observations Writ Appeal No.1107/2021

and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand finally

disposed of. Sd/

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

sd/

A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

jm/