IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31470 of 2009(C) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MALA CHALAKUDY RANGE MADYAVYAVASAYA THOZHILALI FEDERATION, (AITUC) MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT VASANTHAKUMAR. 2. K.P.WILSON, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.POULOSE, KANNAMPUZHA VEEDU KURUVILASSERY P.O, THRISSUR DT. 3. M.C.SASIDHARAN, S/O.CHAMIYAR MALLANKADU HOUSE, POTTA, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR MS.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. T.R.PRAJEESH, THAYYIL HOUSE KUZHIKKATTUSSERY, CHALAKUDY, (LICENSEE) SHOP NO.RV (72) KUTTIKKAD, CHALAKUDY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.31470 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is a Union of Toddy Workers and the second petitioner is a member of the first petitioner-union. The second petitioner is a toddy worker in the toddy shop run by the second respondent. The second petitioner is suffering from very serious ailment and therefore, he is unable to continue work in the toddy shop in question. As per clause 21 of Ext.P3 settlement, an employee who is unable to continue work on account of ill health can nominate a legal heir or a person nominated by the union with the approval of the family of the employee, for employment in his place, who has to be employed by the employer. Accordingly the second petitioner and the first petitioner union nominated the 3rd petitioner for employment in the toddy shop of the second respondent in the place of the second petitioner. Since the employer did not consider the same favourably the petitioners filed Ext.P4 before the first respondent. Petitioners seek a direction to the first respondent to take proceedings on Ext.P.4 in accordance with law expeditiously. 2 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the second respondent at this juncture. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent to take further proceedings on Ext.P4 and take the same to its logical conclusion, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and second respondent as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE nl