K R KUMARAN Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER
LAWS(KER)-2003-3-17
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on March 07,2003

K.R.KUMARAN Appellant
VERSUS
LABOUR COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner was a workman in the Woodland Estate and in that capacity allowed to occupy a building as quarters. On retirement in the year 1999 he did not vacate the building and this resulted in the third respondent filing an application under Rule 63 of the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules, 1959 before the second respondent. The petitioner took the stand that the building did not belong to the third respondent and that the actual owner had entered into a rental arrangement with him, where under he was liable to pay Rs.50/- per month. The said contention, however did not find favour with the second respondent and the petition was allowed. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the first respondent and that was also dismissed vide Ext.P2 and that is why the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Exts.P1 and P2 are bad for three reasons. Firstly it is stated that the second respondent lacked in Jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in so far as the building in question did not belong to the third respondent and the petitioner has a valid contention with regard to leasehold right and only the civil court was competent to go into that aspect. The second aspect is that, in any event, there is denial of opportunity in so far as the second respondent rejected an application filed by the petitioner seeking to examine the stamp vendor, who allegedly sold the stamp paper in which a document relied on by the third respondent was written. Thirdly it is contended that due to continuous occupation for several decades the petitioner has attained a certain status and as such without proper notice he cannot be evicted.
(3.) The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent refuted the contention and submitted that what is involved is official quarters provided to the petitioner and once he retires he is bound to surrender possession of the same after the grace period allowed under the Rules.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.