IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5199 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.J.RAPHAEL, PALLIPATTUPARAMBIL, EWS 747, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI - 20. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, LOCAL COMMITTEE, ERNAKULAM. MR.RENIL ANTO, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5199 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a registered headload worker belonging to Pool No.26 under the 1st respondent. It is stated that he met with an accident during the course of work on 13/08/2004 and has been under treatment since then. 2. However, by Ext.P5, he was removed from the pool on the allegation of continued absence. Against Ext.P5, he filed Ext.P6 appeal to the 1st respondent producing Ext.P7 medical certificate. However, the appeal was rejected by Ext.P8 order. 3. Ext.P8 order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court as WP(C) No.6126/2008, and on the ground that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner, the same was set aside by this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment. Thereafter, the matter was reconsidered and by Ext.P10, the 1st respondent has again rejected the appeal. It is challenging Ext.P5 & P10, the writ petition is filed. 4. Although several contentions have been raised on the merits of the controversy, when the matter was taken up for hearing, WP(C) No.5199/2009 -2- the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to direct the respondents to extend him the benefit of premature retirement as provided under Section 7A(2) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. 5. Heard learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, who sought to justify Exts.P5 & P10. According to him, there was continued absence on the part of the petitioner and it was therefore that he was removed from the pool by the impugned order. 6. Evidently, Section 7A(2) provides that the committee may permit a headload worker to retire prematurely on account of physical disability or ill-health or prolonged illness, at an earlier date, on such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Board. 7. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner suffered an accident on 13/08/2004 during the course of his employment. His ailment is certified in Ext.P7 medical certificate. Even going by Ext.P10, the present appellate order, the 1st respondent has accepted the position that the petitioner can do only light work. From this, it is obvious that the petitioner suffered ill-health. WP(C) No.5199/2009 -3- 8. In such a situation, in my view, it is only appropriate that the petitioner is given the benefit of Section 7A(2) of the Act, referred to above. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P5 & P10 orders and directing the 1st respondent to extend the benefit of Section 7A(2) of the Act. Necessary orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg