Kerala High Court
Kerala State Beverages [M&M] ... vs K. Manikandan on 7 February, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 2024 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.5600 OF 2016 DATED 15.2.2016 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES
(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING),CORPORATION LIMITED,BEVCO
TOWER VIKAS BHAVAN P.O PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2 MANAGING DFIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LIMITED, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN
P.O.PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.
BY ADV NAVEEN.T
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,4 AND 5 IN THE WP(C):
1 JOSE.V.JOSEPH
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE JOSEPH RESIDING AT VENGOORAN HOUSE ITR ROAD
MUVATTUPUZHA-686673
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (A)
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 001.
3 KERALA ABKARI WELFARE FUND BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.REPRESENTED BY CHIEF WELFARE
FUND INSPECTOR.
4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LABOUR ANDS REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024,
ALONG WITH WA.1403/2018, 1537/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1403 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2016 IN WPC NO.18721 OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION LTD.
KEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
33,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION
LIMITED,BEVCO POWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 33.
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1, 4 AND 5 IN THE WP(C):
1 P.M. JAYAKUMAR
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.M.K.PARAMESWARAN,MURITHOTTAHIL
HOUSE,MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.
2 T.K.SEBASTIAN
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.T.D.KURIAKO,THOTTIPARANNOLIL HOUSE,ARAKKUZHA
P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 672.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES (A)
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF WELFARE FUND
INSPECTOR.
5 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LABOUR AND REHABILITATION
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1537 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2016 IN WPC NO.22604 OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION
LIMITED
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
33, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION
LIMITED, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 33.
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1, 4 AND 5 IN THE WP(C):
1 SANTHOSH P.S.
AGED 49 YEARS
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, POTHANAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
VENGALLOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI - 685 698.
2 THANKACHAN ANTONY
AGED 56 YEARS
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, MEKKUNNEL HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM
P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 686 670.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (A)DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF WELFARE FUND
INSPECTOR.
5 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1538 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2016 IN WPC NO.21403 OF 2015 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING)
CORPORATION LIMITED, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -33REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION
LIMITED, BEVCO TOWER,VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 33
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 4 AND 5 IN THE WP(C):
1 K.K. SANTHOSH
AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN PILLAI,KULANGARAKUDIYIL,
MEKKADAMBU P.O, VALAKOM VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES(A) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF WELFARE FUND
INSPECTOR.
4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1539 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2016 IN WPC NO.3783 OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(M&M) CORPORATION LTD
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 33,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION
LIMITED, BEVCO TOWER,VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 4 AND 5 IN THE WP(C):
1 K.A.BABY
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. AUGUSTHY, KATAPPURACKEL, PERUMBALLOOR P.O,
PERINGAZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES9A) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001REPRESENTED BY CHIEF WELFARE FUND
INSPECTOR.
4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2016 IN WPC NO.21592 OF 2015 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C):
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION
LIMITED, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN PO,
PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 IN THE WP(C):
1 P.S.JAYANTHAN
S/O SURENDRAN, PADAKKARA HOUSE, KUMBALANGY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
682007.
2 P.R JAIN
S/O LATE. RAJAN, PADIYIL HOUSE, PERUMBALAM, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT-688524.
3 THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR
THE KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND
BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LABOUR DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY ADVS.
K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM
MURUKESH REGHU
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1541 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2016 IN WPC NO.6908 OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C):
THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION LTD.
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN PO, PALAYAM, THIRUVANATHAPRUAM-33,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN THE WP(C):
1 CHANDRA BABU K.P.
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O KUNHIKUTTAN, 4/935, DHANYA NIVAS,KARUVASSERY
PO, KOZHIKODE-673010.
2 THE ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEFWELFARE FUND
INSPECTOR.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,TAXES
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1542 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2016 IN WPC NO.6101 OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION
LIMITED
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
33,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING)CORPORATION
LIMITED, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 33
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1, 4 AND 5 IN THE WP(C):
1 M.B. PRADEEP
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, MARIYIL VEEDU,RAKKAD, MEKKADAMBA
P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661.
2 P.C SHAJAN
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, PANDALIL
HOUSE,RAKKAD,MEKKADAMBA P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES (A)
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
4 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF WELFARE FUND
INSPECTOR.
5 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT,SECRTARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1604 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.2.2016 IN WPC NO.4183 OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANTS/5TH RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C):
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES [M&M] CORPORATION LTD
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-33, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE WP(C):
1 K. MANIKANDAN
AGED 49 YEARS
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, KURUPPATH HOUSE, KALLEPPULLY
(P.O.), PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 005.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER
EXCISE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.
4 THE KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
001.
5 THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR
KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 2487 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.2.2016 IN WP(C) NO.22058 OF 2015
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C):
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES [MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING]
CORPORATION LTD
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-33, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO. M.
AND M.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 IN THE WP(C):
1.M.R.SURESH, S/O RAVEENDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
MULLAKKARA HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM P.O, KALAMURI,
THRISSUR -680681
2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THE KERALA ABKARI
WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695001
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND
REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
07.02.2024, ALONG WITH WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 2490 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.6.2016 IN WP(C) NO.21127 OF 2016 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C)
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LIMITED,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADV NAVEEN.T
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WP(C):
1 P.B.SUNIL KUMAR,
PUTHALATH HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
682503.
2 DINILKUMAR,
PUTHALATH HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
682503.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR,
THE KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-682031.
5 THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR,
THE KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KCP BUILDING
ARYASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695036.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 2486 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.2.2016 IN WP(C) NO.21392 OF 2015 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LIMITED,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LIMITED,BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.
BY ADV NAVEEN.T
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 4 AND 5 IN THE WP(C):
1 JAYAPRASAD V.I.,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. ETTANKUNJU VAIDYAN, VALLASSERIL VEEDU, THIRUMARADY
VILLAGE, MANNATHUR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA , ERNAKULAM-686667.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES(A) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS
WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001,REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR.
4 THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2024/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
13
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
In the year 1995 the retail outlet for sale of arrack was
started by the Kerala State Beverage Corporation. With effect
from 1.4.1996 arrack was banned in the State of Kerala which
led to deprivation of livelihood of approximately twelve
thousand five hundred (12500) arrack workers. State
Government though brought some succor by paying
compensation of Rs.30,000/- and ex gratia of Rs.2000/-, but
despite that there were lot of agitations, resultantly an
agreement was arrived at, leading to issuance of a Government
order dated 20.2.2002, whereby, the Government had ordered
that 25% of daily wages vacancies which would arise in future
in Corporation would be filled by displaced workers.
2. The benefit of the scheme of 2002 was not extended
to any of the workman. In the meantime, the Government
came out with another rehabilitation scheme altering the
previous one vide Government order dated 7.8.2004 whereby
25% of all daily wage employment vacancies likely to arise in
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
the Corporation were directed to be earmarked for dependant'
sons of the arrack workers consequent to the loss of the
employment due to the ban of arrack in the State. In the
meantime there was an amendment by introducing Rule 4(2),
9(10)(b) of the Kerala Abkari Shop Disposal Rules, 2002
envisaging the absorption of arrack workers who lost
employment due to the abolition of Abkari Shops. The said
Rules were declared as ultra vires by judgment of the Supreme
Court in Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of
Kerala [(2006) 4 SCC 327]. A list of 265 eligible candidates
was prepared in pursuance of the modified order dated
7.8.2004 and was given effect.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that the respondents, petitioners who approached
this Court were the displaced Arrack workers who sought the
benefit of 2002 scheme which could not be given effect in view
of the judgment of the Supreme Court as the Division Bench
of this Court which upheld the judgment of the Single Bench
was set aside in Civil Appeal Nos.7804-7813 of 2019 dated
4.10.2019. The same judgment has been rendered
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
subsequent to the judgment of the Single Bench. This is the
supervening fact which has occurred during the pendency of
the writ appeal. In view of such situation, the judgment of the
Single Bench relying upon the previous order cannot be
permitted to sustain as it would create an anomalous situation.
4. Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 30 to 36 of
the judgment in the Managing Director, KSBC Ltd. v.
P.P Suresh and others (2016(1) KHC 306 ) held as under:
30. On a consideration of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court
with regard to legitimate expectation, no doubt, the said principle can be
pressed into service only if it is founded on intelligible, purposive, pragmatic
and sound foundation whereby a right is accrued on a person. According to us,
on a perusal of the Government Order dated 20.02.2002, we have no doubt in
our minds that the State Government with the laudable object of rehabilitating
the displaced arrack workers have taken the conscious policy decision, and
thereby only the order was issued. It is explicit and clear from the said order
that all stakeholders were consulted by the Government and it was almost on a
consensus of opinion, it was decided to provide 25% of the employment of daily
workers in the Bevco, to the displaced arrack workers. In that view of the
matter, it can be safely concluded that the State Government have issued the
said order with the intention of creating a legitimate expectation in the workers
that they are entitled to acquire work as of right. If at all any change in such
decision was to be made, it should have been made after providing suitable
opportunity to the stakeholders to represent their case in an effective manner.
Such a procedure is sine qua non for observance of the principles of natural
justice. Viewed in that circumstances, if the Government Order dated
07.08.2004 is implemented by the Government with the intention of changing
the policy of providing employment to 25% displaced abkari workers, same is
an arbitrary action and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. So also, having legitimately expected to secure an employment by virtue
of the Government Order dated 20.02.2002, right was matured to the displaced
workers and thereby paving way for the culmination of a right to life provided
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is all the more a further
reason to have provided with a hearing to the workers/or their representatives
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
before tinkering with the said order.
31. Moreover, on a perusal of the Government Order dated 07.08.2004, we
have seen that Government has referred to its order dated 20.02.2002 and at
the bottom of the order it is stated that the order dated 20.02.2002 is modified
to the extent, to provide employment to 25% of the daily work in the Bevco to
the dependent sons of perished arrack workers. If the Government intended a
supersession of its order dated 20.02.2002, instead of employing the
phraseology 'modification', the phraseology 'suspersession' should have been
used. Having not done so, we are of the clear opinion that the Government did
not intend to supersede its earlier order dated 20.02.2002. We also feel that
both the Government Orders should be read together in harmony in order to
implement the rehabilitation scheme launched by the State Government to
provide employment to the displaced abkari workers. On a perusal of various
documents produced along with certain writ petitions, we also feel that
deviating from the scheme proclaimed under the said Government Orders,
Government have provided employment to persons who are not included in the
said scheme.
32. We are also reminded of the duties cast upon the State Government under
the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part-IV of the Constitution. On a
reading of Articles 38, 39, 40,41, 42 and 43, wherein the framers of the
Constitution intended the Government to see that such policies contemplated
under the said provisions of the Constitution are implemented by the
Government. Therefore, when schemes were launched by the Government
under the two Government Orders referred supra, we are definitely of the
opinion that the Government was bearing in mind these social objectives
propounded by the framers of the Constitution. Having framed policies on the
basis of such social objectives, definitely, the Government was paving way to
the displaced abkari workers to legitimately expect that they are entitled to get
employment under the scheme launched by the State.
33. Therefore, the State cannot now turn around and submit that it was free
and at liberty to change the policy at its sweet will and pleasure. That apart,
having gone through the two Government Orders and the conduct of the
Government discussed above, we do not think that the action of the
Government in diluting the order dated 20.02.2002 is legal. Rather, it suffers
from the vice of arbitrariness and the same is irrational and unreasonable. We
are constrained to say so since at the time of issuance of the Government Order
dated 20.02.2002, the bonafide intention was to provide employment to the
displaced abkari workers and we have already stated that such an order was
issued after discussing with all the affected persons/or their representatives and
therefore the benefits provided under the said scheme by itself created a vested
right in the displaced abkari workers, and in that circumstances, without any
justifiable reasons, the Government is not at liberty to change their policy to
the disadvantage of the said workers and that too in absolute violation of the
principles of natural justice. Moreover, before arriving at such a decision, it
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
can only be legally presumed that, the Government have examined the pros and
cons, means and measures, and practicality, viability and execution of such a
rehabilitation policy. These are all characteristics and hallmarks of a good
governance and the normal presumption can only be, accordingly. It is true
that the established legal principles enunciated by the Courts lead us to the
conclusion that the application of the principle depends on facts and
circumstances of each case and no Court would be able to provide a structural
formula. But, if the denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to
denial of rights guaranteed or is arbitrary, unfair or biased or gross abuse of
power or violative of the principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution come into play and then the Constitutional Courts should not
hesitate to strike at it.
34. Apart from these aspects, we also find force in the contention of the learned
counsel for the party Respondents that by the judgment of the learned Single
Judge in O.P.No.26878 of 2007, definite findings with regard to the orders
dated 20.02.2002 and 07.08.2004 were rendered by the Court in favour of the
displaced abkari workers. The Government having not chosen to impugne the
said judgment, is not at liberty to canvass any proposition against the findings
rendered in the said judgment adverse to the State. It is a well settled
proposition of law that it is not the ratio decidendi alone, but the whole
judgment will have to be read together in order to ascertain the conclusive
findings rendered by the Court. In that view also, we are of the considered
opinion that the order passed by the State Government pursuant to order dated
22.06.2009 was not in compliance with the directions contained in the said
judgment and the State is also prohibited from re-agitating the issue since it is
hit by res judicata, in pursuance to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.26878 of 2007
dated 03.04.2009.
35. We are also of the opinion that the direction contained in O.P.No.21971 of
2002 and connected cases dated 31.08.2006 of a Division Bench of this Court
was only concerning the back door appointments made in the Bevco and in
order to put an end to the same only the directions were issued therein. That
will not in any manner prevent the appellants from implementing a scheme
launched by it to discharge its social obligations and to protect the interests of
the displaced abkari workers. Moreover, if the State is willing to implement the
order dated 07.08.2004, overlooking the directives contained in the said
judgment supra, nothing prevents the State from implementing the Government
Order dated 20.02.2002, as directed by the learned Single Judge.
36. Taking into account the cumulative fact situations, evidence on record and
the principles of law put forth by the rival counsel, we are of the considered
opinion that the judicial review undertaken by the learned Single Judge was
legally correct by sustaining the challenge made in the writ petitions and
holding that the State is bound to implement the Government Order dated
20.02.2002. We do not find any illegality or other legal infirmities in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, warranting our interference in these
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
appeals.
5. However the Supreme Court gave the findings as
under:
32. The promise held out by the Government to provide employment to the
displaced Abkari workers had become an impossible task in view of the non-
availability of vacancies in the Corporation. The decision taken by the
Government in overriding public interest was a measure to strike a balance
between the competing interest of the displaced Abkari workers and
unemployed youth in the State of Kerala. The impairment of the fundamental
rights of the Respondents due to the change in policy cannot be said to be
excessive. Hence, it cannot be said that the change in policy regarding re-
employment of displaced abkari workers is disproportionate.
33. Another contention of Respondents which found favour with the High Court
was that the Order dated 07.08.2004 was found illegal in Writ Petition (C)
No.26878 of 2007 and that the said judgment has become final. Aggrieved by
their non- appointment in spite of inclusion in the list of 265 dependent sons of
the deceased displaced workers, they filed a Petition seeking a direction to the
Government to appoint them. The High Court directed the Government to
appoint those persons who were included in the list, pursuant to the Order
dated 07.08.2004 within a period of six weeks. The High Court further
observed that the Order dated 20.02.2002 should not have been altered and
directed the Government to reconsider the order dated 07.08.2004. The
Government complied with the direction of the High Court in the Writ Petition
above and issued a Government Order dated 30.04.2009 by which employment
was provided to 265 dependent sons of deceased Abkari workers. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the validity of the order dated 07.08.2004 has been finally
decided in Writ Petition (C) No.26878 of 2007.
34. We are not in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court that
a right of appointment accrued to the Respondents and it matured into a Right
to Life as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution. We disapprove the opinion
of the High Court that the Order dated 07.08.2004 is in continuation of the
Order dated 20.02.2002 in view of the Order dated 20.02.2002 not being
superceded. The Order dated 07.08.2004 was issued in modification of the
Order dated 20.02.2002. A close scrutiny of both the Orders would indicate
that the Order dated 07.08.2004 replaces the Order dated 20.02.2002 in view
of a fresh decision taken to provide employment only to the dependent sons of
deceased Abkari workers.
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
Since the order of the Single Bench is based upon the
previous Government Order of 2002 which cannot be
implemented being non est in the eyes of law owing to the
judgment of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, impugned
judgments are set aside. Writ appeals stand allowed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
sab C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE AI A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
5.7.2016 IN S.L.P.(CIVIL)NO.5550/2016 AND
CONNECTED CASES ON THE FILES OF THE
HONOURABLE APEX COURT.
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
5.7.2016 IN S.L.P(CIVIL)NO, 5550/2016 AND
CONNECTED CASES ON THE FILES OF THE
HONOURABLE APEX COURT.
WA NO. 1540 OF 2018 AND CONCTD. CASES
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
5.7.2016 IN S.L.P (CIVIL) NO.5550/2016 AND
CONNECTED CASES ON THE FILES OF THE
HONOURABLE APEX COURT.
