IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8407 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS WORKERS FEDERATION (STU), P.O. VAZHANI, VIRUPPAKA, THRISSUR-680 589, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, K.K. SAIDU MOHAMMED. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE RETURNING OFFICER, TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS AND ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GRADE-I, TRICHUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, VADAKKANCHERRY, TRICHUR. 3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, TRICHUR. 4. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.8407/2008 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15/02/2008 CONVENED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF NOMINATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 10/03/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH APPLICATION FOR DUPLICATE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P5: COPY OF LETTER CHELLAN REMITTING THE REQUIRED FEE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF REJECTION ORDER, DTD. 10/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF AFFILIATION NO,293, DTD. 4/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE SWATHANTHRA THOZHILALI UNION COUNCIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.8407 of 2008-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.By Clause 13 of Ext.P1 issued on 15-2-2008, nominations were to be submitted for the referendum in question between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 10-3-2008. This writ petition is filed on 11- 3-2008 following the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner Union. 2.The short issue is whether the nomination was accompanied by the necessary documents. Clause 16 of Ext.P1 provides that the nomination shall be accompanied by, among other things, certified copies of the registration certificate and affiliation certificate. Clause 17 provides that those, who have applied for duplicate of the registration certificate, shall produce a WP(C)8407/2008 -: 2 :- “sakshyapathram”, thereby meaning a certificate or a document of attestation regarding such application. 3.Ext.P4 shows that along with the nomination, the petitioner had produced a copy of the application made by it before the Assistant Labour Officer on 10-3-2008 for duplicate of the registration certificate. The receipt of the original of Ext.P4 is vouchsafed by the endorsement by the ALO at the foot of the document placed as per Ext.P4 at page No.19 of this writ petition. 4.After service of notice through special messenger, the contention advanced by the respondents through the learned Government Pleader is that Ext.P4 cannot be treated as a “sakshyapathram” in as much as the ALO has not certified the fact that an application for duplicate of the registration certificate has been made. The requirement of a “sakshyapathram” is for the Returning Officer to ensure that an application for a duplicate of the WP(C)8407/2008 -: 3 :- registration certificate has been duly made before the appropriate authority. There is no prescribed form for such certification. Ext.P1 does not even say as to what should be the nature of certification. The word “sakshyapathram” in Clause 17 of Ext.P1 only means an appropriate certification by the competent authority regarding the receipt of the application for the duplicate of the registration certificate. Such certification should be sufficient enough to instil confidence in the mind of a reasonably prudent Returning Officer regarding the factum of such an application having been made before the competent authority. This is the purposive method in which Clause 16 of Ext.P1 has to be understood. Viewed in that angle, the endorsement by the ALO at the foot of page 2 of Ext.P4 (at Page No.19 of the writ petition) with his signature and seal stating “copy received” only means that he has received the original of that document a reading of the contents of which, will show that it is an application for issuance of the duplicate of the WP(C)8407/2008 -: 4 :- registration certificate. The income and expenditure statement, chalan, copy of minutes and copy of affidavit have also been shown to be filed along with that request, as enclosures. There is nothing on record to show that the ALO has rejected that application. 5.The most glaring fact is that the fact that the petitioner was also a union which had participated in the referendum for the previous years, is not in dispute. Its registration is in the year 1989. 6.Having regard to what is aforesaid, the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner and the resultant Ext.P6 are unsustainable. 7.In the result, the impugned Ext.P6 is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner's nomination shall also be considered on the basis of the aforesaid certification of the ALO. To aid such process, the referendum proposed to be held on 15- 3-2007 shall stand adjourned by the force of this WP(C)8407/2008 -: 5 :- judgment to 29-3-2008 or any convenient date without delay and notice shall be published by the Returning Officer bringing such adjournment to the notice of the different workmen. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/