IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37699 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.R.SURESH, S/O.RAVINDRAN, MULLAKARA HOUSE, KAYIPAMANGALAM.P.O, KALAMURI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KCP BUILDING, CHALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.37699 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January 2010 Judgment The petitioner was an employee in Arrack Shop No.19 of Lissy Junction, Ernakulam Range. His service was terminated with effect from the year 1999. He contended that denial of his employment was without any basis and that it was illegal and violative of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute between the employer and employee was referred to the Labour Court, Ernakulam and by Ext.P1 award, it has been found by the Labour Court that he was entitled to reinstatement. But since the business of vending arrack in Kerala has been prohibited, his reinstatement was found to be impossible. Therefore, the Labour Court has declared that he is entitled to get rehabilitation in case any such scheme is formulated by the Government of Kerala. WP(C)No.37699/2009 2 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that such rehabilitation scheme is being implemented by the Government. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has submitted Ext.P2 representation before the first respondent, but that no orders have been passed thereon till date. In the above circumstances, I feel that the Writ Petition itself can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 representation in accordance with the rehabilitation scheme that is being implemented by the Government for rehabilitation of displaced employees of arrack shops that were functioning in the State. 3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the WP(C)No.37699/2009 3 petitioner also. The petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this Writ Petition as well as a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge css/