V-Star Creations Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs The District Labour Officer and Others

P.N. Ravindran, J.—The first Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture, import and export of garments and wearing apparel. Petitioners 2 to 11 are the employees of the first Petitioner. Petitioners 2 to 11 submitted separate applications to the third Respondent for registration as headload workers of the first Petitioner''s establishment under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules 1981 and issue of identity cards to them. By Ext.P3 order passed on 15.12.2010, third Respondent allowed the applications and issued the identity cards produced and marked as Ext.P4 series. The 5th Respondent, who is a pool worker attached to Pool No. 43 of Ernakulam District filed Ext.P6 appeal before the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam challenging Ext.P3 order. The appellate authority received the appeal to file and issued notice to the parties. The Petitioners thereupon filed Exts.P8 and P12 objections contending that the appeal at the instance of 5th Respondent is not maintainable. They also prayed that the said issue may be decided as a preliminary issue. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking the following reliefs.

i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and P7 and verify the legality, propriety and correctness and reasonableness and quash the same.

Ii) declare that the Ext.P6 appeal filed by the pool worker (5th Respondent) challenging the Ext.P3 and P4 is not maintainable before the first Respondent under Rule 26 C of the Rules 1981, since the 5th Respondent is not an "aggrieved person" as defined under Rule 26 C of the Rules 1981 and hence has no locus/right to file such an appeal and consequently the proceedings initiated by the first Respondent as per Ext.P6 and P7 is null, void and unsustainable in law.

Iii) issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P13 and P14 and verify its legality, propriety, and correctness and reasonableness and quash the same.

iv) declare that the proceedings of settlement/conciliation initiated by the Respondents 1 to 3 under Ext.P13 and P14 are not maintainable u/s 21 of the Act 1978, on the ground that the definition of "dispute" and "employer" will take into its fold only those disputes connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of the employment of any headload worker, with his corresponding employer defined under the Act of 1978 and not otherwise.

The main contention raised by the Petitioner is that an appeal at the instance of 5th Respondent from Ext.P3 order passed by the third Respondent is not maintainable. In other words, it is contended that 5th Respondent cannot be said to be a person aggrieved and therefore an appeal at his instance is incompetent. In my opinion, it is a matter which the appellate authority will have to consider either as a preliminary issue or while disposing of the appeal. It is evident from the materials on record that the Petitioners have already raised the said contention before the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam. If accepting the said contention, the appellate authority rejects the appeal, the Petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved. On the other hand, if the said contention is overruled and the appeal is rejected on merits, then also the Petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved. The Petitioners can be said to be aggrieved only if the appellate authority allows the appeal and sets aside Ext.P3 order. At that stage, the Petitioners can challenge the said order in this Court and raise the issue regarding the maintainability in that writ petition. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that challenge to the maintainability of the appeal is premature. If in every case where a person invokes the appellate remedy, this Court were to entertain a challenge to the maintainability of the appeal, this Court will be left with no time to decide disputes between parties which this Court alone can adjudicate. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that District Labour Officer shall consider the objection raised by the Petitioners as to the maintainability of the appeal and shall enter a finding on that issue while passing orders on the appeal.