IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11473 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ALL KERALA KALLUCHETHU MADYA VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI UNION (REGD) REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,N.BHADRAN PILLAI,SHAN TOURIST HOME,NALLEZHATHU MUKKU,CHAVARA P.O,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER,OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:11473 OF 2010 H ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st May, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming itself to be a registered trade union of workers who were displaced consequent to the banning of the sale of arrack in the State of Kerala. When the arrack shops were closed down with effect from 1/4/1996, the Government had issued Ext.P1 order for the purpose of rehabilitating the workers who were rendered jobless. There were litigations which had gone right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioner complains that in spite of Ext.P1 the displaced workers for whose benefit Ext.P1 had been issued have still not been rehabilitated. Though Ext.P1 has directed the Labour Commissioner to examine the problems relating to the retrenchment of the workers and to take necessary steps for their rehabilitation, the petitioner complains that no action has been taken yet. The petitioner has therefore submitted Ext.P2 representation to the Government. It is complained that on Ext.P2 representation also no orders have been passed. The petitioners seek appropriate directions for an expeditious disposal of Ext.P2. WPC 11473/2010 2 2. I have heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader Mr. K.C.Santhosh Kumar and Mr. M.K.Chandramohan Das who appears for the third respondent. 3. Since the main relief that is sought for in the writ petition is the issue of directions for an expeditious disposal of Ext.P2, I do not find any reason to deny the same. 4. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner set out in Ext.P2 representation in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 11473/2010 3