Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
THE COCHIN CUSTOM HOUSE AGENTS' ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA & ORS – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32021 OF 2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.JAYASANKAR, MANU GOVIND, B.MEERA
For the Respondents: O.M.SHALINA, T.V.AJAYAKUMAR, ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS, BINU MATHEW, M.CHANDRA BOSE, S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.), ISAAC THOMAS, A.RAJASIMHAN, T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, T.P.PRADEEP, TOM THOMAS, RIMJU P.H.
Petitioners entitled to welfare benefits under law amid existing schemes as per precedent.
Headnote:This judgment concerns the challenge by the Cochin Custom House Agents’ Association and its members to the amendment incorporating Section 3A of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Workers Welfare Fund Act, asserting entitlement to benefits under existing labor welfare schemes. The court references a relevant prior Division Bench decision requiring consideration of the petitioners' coverage under the Act, determining the petitioners are entitled to similar benefits as directed by the previous judgment. The final order directs the respondent to assess petitioners' coverage following established legal precedents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to amendment of welfare provisions (Para 1) |
| 2. entitlement based on prior court decision (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. final directive for coverage assessment (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
1. The 1st petitioner is a Custom House Agents’ Association and the petitioners 2 to 4 are its members. They challenge the amendment incorporating Section 3A of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Workers Welfare Fund Act to cover all their employees notwithstanding their coverage under similar or better welfare provisions under existing labour welfare schemes.
2. When this matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that the issue is covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 26.03.2024 in W.A. No.709/2013 and connected cases, by which the 2nd respondent was directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to the coverage of the establishments of the petitioners after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
3. In view of the said judgment, the petitioners herein are also entitled to the same benefits.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the
2nd respondent to consider the coverage of the petitioners under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Workers Welfare Fund Act , after giving an opportunity herein to the petitioners in accordance with directions in the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment of this Court.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE mus APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32021 OF 2009 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S ANNUAL STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION FOR THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 2008 TO FEBRUARY 2009.
