Jofil A vs Radha. K
2024 Latest Caselaw 5247 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jofil A vs Radha. K on 15 February, 2024

Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

WP(C) No.5966/2024                          1/3

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                         PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
            Thursday, the 15th day of February 2024 / 26th Magha, 1945
                            WP(C) NO. 5966 OF 2024 (U)
                    CP 6/2019 OF LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM, KOLLAM
   PETITIONER:

          JOFIL A, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O ASAF, V.V. HOUSE, KARIMPUVILA
          NJARAYILKONAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695602

   RESPONDENTS:

      1. RADHA. K, BHAIRAVI HOUSE PAZHUVADI, MADAVOOR, PALLIKKAL P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695604
      2. SAJI MOIDEEN KOYA (THAHA), (PROPRIETER, MALABAR HOTEL,
         KADAMPATTUKONAM) JANI MANZIL, KAYALPURAM LANE, VILAPPURAM AYROOR
         P.O., VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695310


        Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
   stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
   pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P9 pending
   disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil).


        This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
   the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
   M/S.JIJUMON H & ARSHA SATHEESAN Advocates for the petitioner, the Court
   passed the following:
 WP(C) No.5966/2024                               2/3




                             RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
                            -------------------------------------
                               W.P.(C) No.5966 of 2024
                           -------------------------------------------
                       Dated this the 15th day of February 2024


                                            ORDER

Issue notice by speed post to the respondents.

Smt. Arsha Satheesan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

points out that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the Labour

Court in fixing the liability upon the petitioner, who is admittedly only an

employee. She would refer to the observations in Exts. P10 to P12 judgment to

substantiate her contention.

There will be an interim order as prayed for, for a period of six weeks.

Post on 27.03.2024.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE DCS

15-02-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5966/2024 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 05.01.2024 IN CP 6/2019 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN S.N. SAHI VS. VISHWANATH LAL [1959 SCC ONLINE PAT 2] Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN HUSSAINBHAI CALICUT VS. ALATH FACTORY THEZHILALI UNION, KOZHIKODE [(1978) 4 SCC 257] Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN BOMBAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES V. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR. [(2022) 5 SCC 629]

15-02-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar