IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34349 of 2004(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. LAKSHMI KRISHNAN, W/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT VANDANA, ISWARIYA ROAD, AJANOOR P.O. HOSDURG TALUK. 2. THANKAMANI, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, PUTHIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KOTTACHERRY, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), HOSDURG. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, R2 BY SRI.NAVEEN. T, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34349/2004-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION A REGISTERED UNION. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE P.2. TO THE R.2. DTD. 26/09/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DETERMINATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONERS DTD. 01/09/00. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 05/02/01. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS TO THE R.1. DT. 13/09/2004. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).2580/04/LBR DTD. 30/09/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 34349 OF 2004 L ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging orders imposing liability on them under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the Act. According to the petitioners, they were informed by Ext.P6 communication that the appeal filed by them had been posted for hearing on 29-9-2004 at 4 p.m in the chamber of the concerned authority, at the Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to Ext.P6 notice they had travelled to Thiruvananthapuram with the object of taking part in the hearing of the appeal. However, they could not enter the premises because there was a blockade of the Secretariat by a political party. Consequently, though the petitioners were present at Thiruvananthapuram, they could not attend the hearing due to circumstances beyond their control. In their absence, Ext.P7 order has been passed by the first respondent. Counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the petitioners had deliberately kept away from the hearing and had WPC 34349/2004 2 not co-operated with the same. It is contended that the petitioners have not produced any evidence to substantiate their contentions even before this Court in the above writ petition. Therefore, it is contended that their request for a rehearing lacks bonafides. It is the further contention of the counsel that the employees who are the beneficiaries of Ext.P7 are the persons who are actually affected and that their interests are not represented in these proceedings. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent more or less on the same lines as the contentions of the second respondent. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that though the appeal had been posted on 29-9-2004 for hearing as last chance, since the petitioner did not choose to appear either personally or through counsel, the matter was examined in detail, in their absence and final orders were passed. 3. It is clear from the pleadings as well as the documents produced that Ext.P7 has been passed admittedly without hearing the petitioner. The contention of the petitioners that they had actually travelled to Thiruvananthapuram to participate in the hearing but that they had been prevented from gaining access to the Government Secretariat because of a blockade enforced by one WPC 34349/2004 3 of the political parties, is not denied by any of the respondents. Inasmuch as Ext.P7 has been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, it is only just and proper that the petitioners are given a further opportunity of being heard in the matter. Since Ext.P7 has been passed without hearing the petitioners, the same has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Ext.P7 is, in the above circumstances quashed. 4. The first respondent shall consider Ext.P4 appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners also. The appeal shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the Appellate Authority for prompt compliance. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 34349/2004 4 WPC 34349/2004 5