Kerala Khadi And Village ... vs Nisha K.K
2023 Latest Caselaw 6237 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
                                      &
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
           Monday, the 12th day of June 2023 / 22nd Jyaishta, 1945
                             WA NO. 1694 OF 2022

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/07/2022 IN WP(C) 13477/2022 OF THI COURT.




APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

  1. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, KHADI BHAVAN, VANCHIYOOR
     P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
  2. THE DIRECTOR, PAYYANNUR KHADI CENTRE, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, KELOTHU,
     PAYYANNUR, KANNUR-670 307.

 BY ADVOCATES M/S.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR & P.RAMAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

      NISHA K.K., NANDANAM, KUTYATHU P.O., MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670
      602.

BY ADVOCATE SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN


     Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the
circumstances stated in the appeal memorandum, the High Court be pleased
to stay the operation of the judgment dated 07.07.2022 in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 13477 of 2022, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

      Court fee Rs. 200/- is pad under Schedule II Article 3 (iii) (A) (2)
(C)   of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

     This Writ Appeal again coming on for orders on 12/06/2023 upon
perusing the appeal memorandum and this Court's order dated 25/05/2023,
the court on the same day passed the following:
            ALEXANDER THOMAS & C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
                   ==================
                       WA 1694/ 2022
      (Arising out of the judgment dated 07.07.2022 in WP(C) No.13477/2022)
                       ==================
                  Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023
                               ORDER

Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant management submits that Sec.17B wages have been duly

paid by the management to the respondent workman in compliance

of the order dated 20.04.2023, passed by the Division Bench of this

Court. Counsel for the appellant management placed reliance on the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Koodaranji Service Co-

Op. Bank vs M.M. Lissy And Ors. [1993 (2) KLT 706], wherein it has

been held that where the appointment of the workmen is in

contravention of the statutory rules, then the same will not give a

cause of action to the workman to claim the benefits of Sec.25(f) of

the ID Act etc.

2. Sri.C.P.Peethambaran, learned Counsel appearing for the

respondent workmen seeks time to respond to the above said

contention. Appellant management will apprise this Court by filing a

statement/affidavit as to whether the appellant employer is covered

by statutory rules and if so, to produce a copy of the rules dealing with WA 1694/ 2022

- : 2 :-

the method of appointment, qualifications etc for the post of Sales

Assistant in the appellant Khadi and Village Industries Board etc for

the perusal of this Court.

Time granted. List on 29.06.2023.

Handover to both sides.

sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

Nsd