SHAHAL HASSAN MUSALIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is challenging Ext.P25 notification issued by the State Government through which a cashew factory owned by him was declared as vested in the Government. The impugned notification was issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Acquisition Act'). The cashew factory was leased out to the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') through a registered deed dated 17.07.1970, for a period of three years. The term of lease was extended subsequently, which ultimately expired on 16.07.1976. Despite expiry of the lease, possession of the cashew factory was not surrendered by the Corporation. In the year 1979, Government introduced Kerala Cashew Factories (Requisitioning) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Requisitioning Act'). By virtue of a notification issued in exercise of power vested under Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning Act, the cashew factory in question was taken over for a period of five years, which term expired in the year 1985. The Corporation even then continued in possession of the factory. The State Government introduced the Kerala Cashew Factories (Requisitioning) Amendment Act, 1985 with retrospective effect from 26.08.1982 enabling continuation of the requisition, despite expiry of the period of five years. A further notification was issued under the amended provisions. The petitioner challenged validity of the Amendment Act before this Court. In Ext.P3 judgment, this Court held that, the amendment brought in to Section 3 of the Requisitioning Act is constitutionally invalid and it infringes fundamental rights of the petitioner. Therefore, the State Government and the Corporation were directed to return possession of the cashew factory to the petitioner. In Ext.P3 it was observed that the petitioner should employ all existing staff and workers other than those who were employed directly by the Corporation. It is also made clear that liabilities with respect to workers till the factory is returned to the petitioner shall be with the Corporation and thereafter such liability will be on the petitioner. The State Government and the Corporation had challenged Ext.P3 judgment in writ appeal before this Court and further in SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed confirming Ext.P3 Judgment. The petitioner filed a Contempt of Court case before this Court alleging non implementation of Ext.P3 Judgment. Since the Corporation failed to comply with the direction, this Court deputed an Advocate Commissioner to hand over possession of the factory to the petitioner and accordingly the factory in question was handed over to the petitioner on 4th and 5th of April, 2002.

(2.) IT is averred in the writ petition that the Corporation failed in making payment of legitimate dues to the workers for the period during which the cashew factory was run by them, which lead to a situation of the workers started agitations. The trade unions representing the workers demanded for re- employment of the employees of the Corporation, against terms of Ext.P3 Judgment. There arose litigations also, at the instance of Factory Managers employed by the Corporation seeking continuance in service. A Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P6 Judgment reiterated that, the petitioner and other similar cashew factory owners are liable only to employ workmen, other than the staff and workers engaged by the Corporation. There were series of conciliations regarding the labour disputes raised. Ultimately a labour conference was convened in the presence of the Hon'ble Minister for Industries on 01.08.2005. Decision was arrived to re-open the factory on the undertaking that the petitioner will accommodate all the workers who were working in the factory while it was leased out to the Corporation. On the basis of the settlement Ext.P8 Government Order was issued.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.25512/2009 before this Court seeking police protection for the factory and its functioning. This Court issued direction to afford effective police protection to the petitioner to reopen the factory. Accordingly, the factory was opened on 09.11.2009. But none of the workers reported for duty. Hence, the petitioner commenced production with his own workers. But the striking workers had manhandled the workers of the petitioner, for which Ext.P17 Criminal Case was registered.