IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 8534 of 2005(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NOUSHAD. V.A., VAZHUVELIL HOUSE, EDATHALA P.O., CHOONDI P.O., ALWAYE-5. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. R1 & R2 BY SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8534/2005-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 24/01/2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8534 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a registered headload worker under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order dated 24.1.2005 passed by the second respondent whereby he was kept under suspension in exercise of the power conferred on the second respondent under paragraph 35 of the said Scheme. The main ground of challenge to Ext.P1 order is that the procedure prescribed in paragraph 35 was not followed before the petitioner was placed under suspension. 2. Ext.P1 order of suspension was passed on 24.1.2005 pursuant to the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and a consequential complaint made by 41 headload workers of the very same pool. Under paragraph 35 of the Scheme, the Chairman of the Local Committee can place a registered headload worker under suspension at a time only for a maximum period of 60 days. In the instant case, the order of suspension was without prescribing any time limit. More than 6 years have passed thereafter. The learned counsel W.P.(C) No.8534 of 2005 2 for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge by judgment delivered on 31.12.2009 in S.C.No.47 of 2007 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Court (Adhoc-III) North Paravur, in which the petitioner was the 9th accused. A certified copy of the judgment was also made available to me for perusal. By that judgment, the petitioner herein was found not guilty of the offences with which he was charged and was acquitted under section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such being the situation, as the maximum period during which an order of suspension can operate has expired, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should move the Chairman of the Local Committee who passed Ext.P1 order producing a certified copy of the judgment in S.C.No.47 of 2007 seeking appropriate orders. The maximum punishment permissible under the Scheme is cancellation of registration. That has evidently not done in the instant case. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition directing that in the event of the petitioner submitting an appropriate representation before the second respondent seeking cancellation of Ext.P1 order of suspension and producing a certified copy of judgment in S.C.No.47 of 2007, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass W.P.(C) No.8534 of 2005 3 appropriate orders thereon within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the representation. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8534 of 2005 JUDGMENT Dated:- 4th August, 2011 --------------------------------------