Vishnu Bhaktan vs R.Chandra Bose
2024 Latest Caselaw 16076 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vishnu Bhaktan vs R.Chandra Bose on 7 June, 2024

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
        FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 8574 OF 2018
PETITIONERS:

    1       VISHNU BHAKTAN
            AGED 60 YEARS
            MANAGING PARTNER,M/S.NEW RAJASTHAN MARBLES,
            MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    2       VIBI VISHNU
            PARTNER, M/S.NEW RAJASTHAN MARBLES,
            MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
            SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAN BABU


RESPONDENTS:

    1       R.CHANDRA BOSE
            SHEELA SADANAM, KARAMCODE P.O.,CHATHANNOOR,
            KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN - 691 579.

    2       THE LABOUR COURT
            KOLLAM, PIN - 691 013.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 8574 OF 2018        -2-



                            JUDGMENT

The challenge is against Ext.P7 award passed by the

Labour Court re-instating the first respondent in service.

The facts as disclosed in the writ petition shows that the

first respondent was a head load worker with an identity

card issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Paravur. He

was employed for loading and unloading work in the New

Rajasthan Marbles at Kottiyam. Alleging that there is a

denial of employment he raised a claim for re-

instatement by filing Ext.P1 application.

2. The first petitioner appeared and filed a

written statement as Ext.P2 in which the employer -

employee relationship were denied. He was specifically

pointed out that a workman was a head load worker

coming under the provisions of Head Load Workers Act,

1978 and that an identity card was also issued by the

registering authority under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head

Load Workers Rules. It was also stated that the total

attendance of the workman during the twelve(12)

calendar months was below two hundred(200) and

therefore no retrenchment compensation in terms of

Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act need to be paid

to him.

3. On a consideration of evidence on materials on

record, the Labour Court by the impugned award came

to the conclusion that the workman is entitled to succeed

and accordingly declared that the termination of the first

respondent from service of New Rajasthan Marbles,

Muttathara was not justifiable and therefore ordered to

re-instatement.

4. Notice was issued in the above writ petition

and an interim order of stay of operation of the award

(Ext.P7) was granted on 14.03.2018. Notice issued to

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had been served as per the

office report dated 23.05.2024 and there is no

appearance on behalf of the first respondent.

5. I have heard Sri.Gopakumar R. Thaliyal,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

6. Sri.Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first

respondent was never employed in New Rajasthan

Marbles, Muttathara Unit and the second respondent

Labour Court ought to have taken this into account while

considering the claim of the first respondent. It is

further submitted that the first respondent was a

headload worker who was registered under the

provisions of Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers

Rules. Therefore, he was not entitled for any continuity

of service nor he was entitled for a re-instatement in the

unit concerned.

7. I have considered the submissions raised

across the bar.

It is pertinent to note that the first respondent had

never chosen to contest the matter despite the service of

notice on him in the writ petition is concerned.

Therefore, this Court presumes that the first respondent

has no objection in granting the reliefs to the petitioners

in the present writ petition. Added to the above, it is

evident from the pleadings on record that the first

respondent was never employed at New Rajasthan

Marbles, Muttathara. It passes on comprehension as to

how the Labour Court could order a re-instatement when

the facts are so clear and admitted even going by the

averments of the first respondent who had filed the

claim. In the light of the above, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioners are entitled to

succeed. Therefore, Ext.P7 award passed by the Labour

Court is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. No order as

to costs.

Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

vv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8574/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT IN I.D NO.86/2013 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 16.08.2014.

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR IMPLEADING DATED 20.04.2016.

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 03.09.2016.

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 05.09.2016.

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 04.07.2017.

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.12.2017.

EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 23.10.2003.

EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 24.07.2009.