IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 38671 of 2002(D) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. G.RAJENDRAN, RAJI NIVAS, NANR COMPOUND, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM -1. 2. G.NAGENDRAN, RAJI NIVAS, NANR COMPOUND, MANIN ROAD, KOTTAYAM-1. 3. G.RAJESWARI, RAJI NIVAS, NANR COMPOUND, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM-1. BY ADVS. MR.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.PRIYA VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELPMENT CORPORATION, P.B.NO.13, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 BY ADVS.MR.E.K.MADHAVAN FOR R1 MR.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1 MR.SANDEEP.E. FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.VIPIN DAS FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.65171/2002 IN OP. NO.38671/2002 DISMISSED 11.06.2009 SD/ - V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED DT. 16.4.79 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE IST RESPONDENT AND N.GOVINDARAJA REDDIAR. P2:- COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED DT. 16.4.79 EXECUTED BETWEEN DO. DO. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.6700/K3/85/ID DT. 15.6.85 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.6699/K3/85/ID DT. 15.6.85 ISSUED BY DO. P5:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 24.8.85 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SPECIAL SECRETARY (INDUSTRIES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P6:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.14935/K3/95/ID DT. 31.7.95 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P7:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 17.6.96 SUBMITTED BY 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 29.4.97 G.O. (MS) NO.71/97/ID. P9:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 29.4.97 GO(MS) 72/97/ID. P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 16.5.02 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P11:- COPY OF THE EDITORIAL PAGE DT. 22.2.1996 OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 38671 of 2002 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the owners of two cashew factories, (1) Factory No.32(Q 31) situated in Sy.Nos.87, 88, 89, 90, 101, 102, and 1425 extending to 2 acres and 98 cents in Vadakkevila village, Kollam Taluk, and, (2) Factory No.34 (K.U.9) situated in SyNo.166/7 extending to two acres in Melila village, Kottarakakra Taluk. The petitioners preferred this writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction of order directing the respondents to return the two cashew factories bearing Registration Nos. Q31 (Factory No.32) and KU 9 (Factory No.34) to the petitioners as stipulated under the provisions of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Requisitioning) Act 1979. It is also prayed for a declaration that the Kerala Cashew Factories (Requisitioning) Act 1979 as amended by Act 26/1985 as unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 300A and 301 of the Constitution of India. WP(C) NO.38671/2002 :-2-: 2. Identical question was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in O.P.No.16424/94 by its judgment dated 4.9.97, which was a writ petition moved by another factory owner and the said petition was allowed. Challenging the above judgment, a writ appeal was preferred by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation and the Government of Kerala which resulted in the judgment dated 27.9.2001 reported in K.S.C.D.C V. Shahal Hassan Mussaliar (2002(1) KLT 72). Against the said judgment, the matter was taken before the Apex Court which was finally disposed of by the Apex Court as per its decision which reported in K.S.C.D.V. v. Shahal Hassan Mussaliar (2009 2 KLT 95(SC). So the legal question involved in this case has already been settled by the final judgment of the Apex Court which is applicable in the present case also. As no further question survives to be decided by this Court, this Original Petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to hand over the management of the above mentioned factories to the petitioners. WP(C) NO.38671/2002 :-3-: 3. The learned counsel for the Ist respondent corporation has pointed out that while allowing the petition in favour of the owners of the factory, certain measures may be incorporated so as to safeguard the interest of the workers and the benefit now they are enjoying as per the various enactments relevant and applicable in this establishment may be protected. The learned counsel for the corporation invited my attention to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.16424/94 and submitted that similar safeguards may be incorporated in this judgment also for the said purpose. 4. When the above matter taken on 10.6.2009, the same was put to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and he sought time to consult his parties and today it is submitted that the petitioners are ready to engage the workers those who are now on roll and to extend all benefits and to continue the benefits which now they are getting. The above undertaking is recorded. Regarding the number of WP(C) NO.38671/2002 :-4-: working days to be given to the workers, no direction can be given since there is dispute regarding those aspects. Though the counsel for the Ist respondent Corporation has claimed that the corporation has given more than 200 working days in a year to the workers, there is no material in support of the above submission. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the year 2003 and 2004, total working days were only 17 - 18 days respectively. However, I hope that the petitioners will try to provide maximum working days to the workers so as to prevent the workers putting to poverty and trouble and to have regular earning out of the said work. Recording the above undertaking and the above observation, this OP.is disposed of directing both the respondents to hand over the management of the above factories to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which will be produced by the petitioners before the concerned authorities without delay. The petitioners WP(C) NO.38671/2002 :-5-: are also to see that if any maintenance work is necessary after assuming the management, the same shall be done within a reasonable time so as to limit the loss of working days under that count, otherwise it will adversely affect the interest of the workers. OP disposed of accordingly V.K.Mohanan, Judge kvm/- WP(C) NO.38671/2002 :-6-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO. 38671 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: 11.6..2009 WP(C) NO.38671/2002 :-7-: WP(C) NO.38671/2002 :-8-: