IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35643 of 2010(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------- K.K.VIJAYAN, EX-WORKER, PONMUDI ESTATE, PONMUDI (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 551. BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.P.R.PRATEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PLANTATION LABOUR ACT AND RULES). 2. THE MANAGER, PONMUDI ESTATE, PONMUD I(PO), VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 551. 3. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 001. 4. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ESTATE LABOUR CONGRESS (INTUC), HOUSE NO. 101, PONMUDI PO,VIA-VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 551. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO.35643 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was a plantation worker in the Ponmudi Estate. He retired from its service on 31.12.2008. In terms of the provisions under Rule 63 (1)(ii) of the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules') an allottee of the estate quarters can retain the same for a period of one month on his retirement. On 9.1.2009 the petitioner was served with a notice requiring him to hand over the vacant possession of the layam/estate quarters No.101 situated in Survey No.2992/1 of Thennur Village which was alloted to him. Despite the receipt of the notice and the period in terms Rule 63, he continued to occupy the same. Thereupon, the second respondent submitted a petition before the 3rd respondent in terms of the provisions under Rule 63 (2) of the rules. Ext.P3 order was passed thereon directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant position of the building within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rules read with Section 43(e) of the Kerala Plantation Labour Act, 1951. Ext.P4 appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P9. It is challenging Ext.P9 order that this writ petition W.P. (C) NO.35643 OF 2010 2 has been filed. 2. Essentially the grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P9 order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no inviolable rule that in all cases of violation of principles of natural justice the impugned order must be interfered with. As already noticed, the petitioner got retired from the service of the Plantation Corporation from its Ponmudi Estate on 31.12.2008. As per Rule 63 (1) (ii) of the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules, 1959 any worker who is an allotee of the estate quarters could retain the quarters only for a period of one month since retirement. Based on the aforesaid indisputable and undisputed facts the contentions of the petitioner have to be considered. Going by the above mentioned rule the petitioner who had retired from service on 31.12.2008 could not have and would not have retained the quarters alloted to him beyond 1.2.2009. The petitioner who is a retiree from service did not bring to my notice any provision in the Rules enabling him to occupy a quarters beyond the period mentioned above. Admittedly, he is still occupying the said quarters despite about two years since his retirement from service. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not an allottee of the aforesaid quarters W.P. (C) NO.35643 OF 2010 3 and that the office of the Thiruvananthapuram District Estate Labour Congress (INTUC) has been functioning in the said quarters for the past several years. In the context of the said contentions it is relevant to extract the following from Ext.P3 order:- “It is submitted by the applicant that initially the lavam was allotted to Sri.Vasudevan uncle of the opposite party, who was a worker then. Later on, the lavam was re-allotted to his nephew Sri K.K.Vijayan, the opposite party in this case for accommodation. It is further submitted that there are two more trade unions having affiliations with CITU and AITUC is functioning in the estate and no rooms/lavams were allotted to them for housing as union offices. No agreement were entered into with the union affiliated with INTUC nor any written consent/permission were given to function as union office of Trivandrum District Estate Labour Congress. In the course of hearing held on 23.10.2009, it is submitted by the opposite party that he has joined in the Estate service as a worker in 1969 and retired on 31.12.2008 on attaining superannuation. He is residing in the lavam with his family consisting of his wife and children. He has acquired Ration Card with the number and address of the lavam. He also obtained BSNL Land phones under the name, address and No, of the lavam building in which he is residing. The opposite party further submitted that two other unions, that functioning in the estates, have no offices premises in the estate lavams” Ext.P4 is the appeal preferred against Ext.P3 order. A bare perusal of Ext.P4 would reveal that none of those specific statements relied on by the 3rd respondent was denied in Ext.P4. In Ext.P9 appellate order also those facts were relied on. The W.P. (C) NO.35643 OF 2010 4 facts that the petitioner is residing there with his family and he is possessing ration card in the same address besides a BSNL connection in his name to the said quarters are still remaining undisputed. Even in this writ petition there is no denial with respect to those relevant facts which were relied on by the respondents 1 and 3. In short, despite the expiry of the permissible period in terms of Rule 63(1)(ii) of the Rules as early as on 1.2.2009 the petitioner has been unauthorisedly occupying the aforesaid quarters. Therefore, even if it is taken that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aligarh Muslim University and others v. Mansoor Alikhan reported in AIR 2000 SC 2783. It was held:- “If no conclusion other than one taken in the impugned order is possible on the facts of the case, the decision cannot be invalidated merely for the reason that the person affected by the order was not put on notice or heard”. In fact, in such cases it cannot be said that he was prejudiced on account of not being heard. In view of the admitted facts and facts obtained in this case I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to establish the prejudice caused to him. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for remitting W.P. (C) NO.35643 OF 2010 5 the matter back solely for the purpose to comply with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner who is continuation with the unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid quarters since 1.2.2009 cannot be permitted to protract the proceedings especially in the absence of any right of continuance with the occupation of the quarters. When based with such a situation the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given some time for vacating the quarters in question. Considering the totality of the circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner is living in the quarters in question with his family the petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the quarters in question in terms of Ext.P4 and P9. Subject to the said observation this writ petition is dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. mns