National Agencies (Cochin) Pvt. Ltd. challenged Ext.P1, an order issued under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, that assessed contributions on omitted wages for the period 2002–2003 to 2004–2005. The claimant had been subjected to an assessment following an inspection by the Insurance Inspector, which reported remuneration paid to the Managing Director (MD) and handling charges. The ESI Court, in IC No.66/2007, held that the MD’s remuneration-related contribution was incorrectly assessed but that the handling charges were properly taxed; it exempted the MD from contributing. The applicant argued that the MD, as a director of a private company, cannot be treated as an employee for ESI purposes and that due process was not adequately observed, constituting a violation of natural justice. The appeal before the Kerala High Court challenged these findings and sought to restore the insurer’s assessment in full. The High Court examined statutory definitions and prevailing precedents, including Apex Engineering and Cochin Cadalac, and ultimately concluded that a Managing Director can be an employee for ESI purposes and liable to pay contributions, distinguishing the Cochin Cadalac decision as per incurium. The court set aside the EICourt’s relief and upheld the insurer’s assessment, granting one month to pay the due amount, with rights to take further action if not complied with.
This writ appeal arises from a challenge to a single-judge order that granted police protection to a granite quarry operator operating within Thriprangottoor Grama Panchayat. The appellants, respondents 4–13 in the writ petition, contest that the petitioner has only a licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, but has not obtained all other permissions/licences required under various statutes, including restrictions under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 (KIWCA). They specifically contend that Sec. 40 of the KIWCA prohibits quarrying within one kilometre of water tanks, and two tanks lie within that radius, rendering the activity unlawful. The respondents/petitioners (and respondents 1–3 in the writ petition) assert that the petitioner has obtained all requisite permissions and licences and rely on Ext.P9, a Government circular, which designates local authorities as the nodal body to ensure compliance of all statutes before grant of a quarry licence; the circular presumes compliance with other permissions once a licence is issued under the Act. The learned Single Judge relied on Ext.P9 to hold that police protection may be granted to permit quarrying pending issues with other permissions. The High Court ultimately dismisses the appeal, confirming the protection order but clarifying that the licence can still be challenged legally if improper.
SC.No. 48/2021; SC.No. 661/2019; SC.No. 1100/2019 This is a triad of criminal miscellaneous petitions filed in the Kerala High Court by seven accused persons in Crime No. 362/2018 of Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur, seeking quashing of proceedings before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur. The offences alleged span multiple IPC sections (143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 506(ii) and 308 read with 149), ostensibly arising from an unlawful assembly linked to political rivalries on 03.08.2018. The petitions contend that the dispute is private in nature and has been settled, supported by Annexure-A2 (an affidavit by the second respondent) declaring no grievances and no objection to quashing. The respondents’ counsel acknowledge the settlement; the second respondent expressly confirms and supports the quashing prayer. The High Court notes the lack of serious injuries and the private character of the dispute, and, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, finds the chances of successful prosecution bleak. Consequently, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court allows the petitions and quashes the ongoing trials: S.C. No. 48/2021, S.C. No. 661/2019, and S.C. No. 1100/2019. The order underscores the primacy of settlement and the need to avoid fruitless prosecution in private-dispute cases.
Cont.Case (C) No. 2494 of 2019 Cont.Case (C) No. 2494 of 2019, pending before the Kerala High Court, concerns a contempt petition filed by several retired employees of the Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Company Limited (MAMALA) alleging willful disobedience of directions contained in the High Court’s 12 October 2018 judgment in WP(C) No. 14834 of 2015 and connected matters. The petition asserts non-compliance by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) with the court’s directions related to pension benefits and the scheme amendments introduced by the 2014 notification (G.S.R. 609(E)) and subsequent read-downs. The petition references the Supreme Court’s later decision dated 4 November 2022 in Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO, which upheld the legality of the 2014 amendment and laid down directions for implementing its provisions, including extending time for exercising options under paragraph 11(4) of the post-amendment pension scheme and related relief for eligible members. The Kerala High Court, after considering the Apex Court judgment, held that the petitioners’ entitlement for higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO in accordance with law and directed the EPFO to undertake this exercise. The contempt petition was then closed by a Division Bench (Anil K. Narendran, J. and G. Girish, J.) on 26 October 2023, reserving the petitioners’ rights to challenge outcomes post-reconsideration.
This Kerala High Court Division Bench conducts an Article 227 challenge to Ext. P6, an attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 6, in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in O.P. No. 1299 of 2020, Family Court, Attingal. The petitioners (Mubeena and Nizar A) challenge the conditional attachment of the schedule property, arguing item No. 2 belongs to the 2nd petitioner under a settlement deed and that construction was financed by loans; they contend the Family Court did not consider their documents Ext. P1–P5 and that the impugned order was passed in a peremptory manner. The 1st respondent (Farha Salim) sought a decree of dissolution and attachment to secure a monetary claim (Rs. 48,66,760) including movable assets; the other respondents assert related interests and defenses. The court recalls the principle that attachment before judgment is a drastic remedy requiring circumspection and full factual support, citing the Full Bench decision in Sadasivan K. v. Surendradas to stress that vague allegations cannot sustain such an order. After evaluating the evidence, the court holds that the 2nd item of the petition schedule belongs to the 2nd petitioner and that Ext. P6 cannot subsist there. Accordingly, Ext. P6 is set aside to the extent it relates to the second item; I.A. No. 1 of 2020 is dismissed to that extent. The petition is thereby allowed in part, leaving the remainder intact.
This writ petition challenges an arbitral order under the National Highways Act, 1956, arising from the acquisition of a small land parcel (0.0026 hectares) in Kunhimangalam, Kannur District, for widening NH-66. The Central Government–appointed Arbitrator determines compensation under NH Act 3G(1); disputes over the amount are referred to arbitration under 3G(5), with 3G(6) making Arbitration Act provisions applicable. Ext. P1 (03.03.2019) sought a determination under 3G(5); Ext. P2 (17.06.2023) an order dismissing the application on the ground that the petitioners failed to produce a copy of the award, a procedure the respondent contends is mandatory. The petitioners argue that production of the award copy is a technicality and that a court can intervene under Article 226 to ensure fairness, especially given the petitioners’ senior status and remote locality. The respondents rely on mandatory production and on SBP and Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd to assert that High Courts should not intervene in arbitral processes except via statutory remedies (Section 34 and Section 37). The Kerala High Court, while reaffirming the limits of interference, sets aside Ext. P2 and directs the petitioners to produce the copy of the award within two weeks; upon receipt, the 1st respondent must refile the application and dispose of it expeditiously, within about three months. The judgment emphasizes that NH Act arbitration is statutory, and the arbitrator is a statutory authority, with limited scope for judicial intervention.
Federation of LIC Class-I Officers’ Association, represented by its General Secretary, and another petitioned against Exts. P5 and P6, and sought condonation of the absence of Federation members in Kerala on 18 February 2010 for the grant of Normal Grade Increments, Stagnation Increments, and Confirmation, and related benefits following demands for VI Central Pay Commission revisions. The petition argued that after VI CPC recommendations, most central government employees and public sector employees received revised pay and LIC Class-I Officers should not be treated differently; peaceful agitation occurred including a hunger strike in February 2010 and there had been due notices. The petition claims LIC had previously condoned similar absences in token strikes and that the subsequent postponement of increments was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Article 14. The respondents argued that Rule 25A of the LIC Staff Regulations 1960 prohibits strikes and that Section 48(2)(CC) LIC Act 1956 empowers the government to frame service terms; the one day strike on 18 February 2010 was unauthorized and treated as unauthorised absence with no pay. The court relies on G Balagopalan, Ibrahimkutty K and Shaji Sanjayi Nottithodi to hold that there is no right to strike under the LIC framework and that the regulation based prohibition is applicable. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed.
CRL.M.C. No. 8488 of 2022 This Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 8488 of 2022) arises under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1, the complaint in C.C. No. 647/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 3 are M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. and its authorised signatory Sheeja Sunny. The complainant alleges that the first accused engaged in a channel carriage arrangement for the JEEVAN satellite TV channel, culminating in a set of three cheques dated 04.11.2016, 11.11.2016 and 18.11.2016 for Rs.3,63,375 each, which later bounced. The petition contends that the second petitioner is only an employee authorised to sign but has no control over day-to-day affairs, and that even if a legally enforceable debt exists, the loss suffered has been largely cured by subsequent payments (Rs.45,00,000 on 28.03.2018 and Rs.5,00,000 on 29.03.2018) per Annexure A-2, thereby negating the substrate of the complaint. It further argues that continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process and that quashing the proceedings would serve ends of justice. The respondent State and complainant contend the payments did not extinguish the liability and that facts require proof at trial. The High Court invokes Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and related precedents to rest its stance, concluding that the complaint should not be quashed merely on alleged payments and pre-trial doubts. It holds that the law on quashing is not res integra and dismisses the petition. The result is that the complaint proceeds in due course.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. 9406/2023) arises from Crime No. 1065/2023 registered with Kottakkal Police Station, Malappuram, and the case CC No. 2191/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. The petition, filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeks to quash the final report and all further proceedings on the ground that the dispute between the petitioners (accused nos. 1–4) and the second respondent has been settled amicably. The prosecution alleges offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from an incident on 15.09.2023 outside Grace Valley College where the second respondent was allegedly restrained and assaulted with an iron rod. The petition asserts that the parties have arrived at a settlement; Annexure-C sworn by the second respondent states no objection to quashing. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor, the court found the settlement bona fide and genuine, with the Investigating Officer reporting that the settlement is bona fide. There is no public interest involved, and the chances of conviction are remote; continuing proceedings would waste judicial time. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Prabhatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the court held that amicable settlements in such non-serious matters justify quashing under the inherent power of 482 CrPC. The petition is allowed, and Annexure-B final report and all further proceedings in CC No.2191/2023 are quashed.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns Navin Nelson and co-accused in CC 949/2014, arising from Crime 723/2013 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam. The petition seeks quashing of the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC, arguing the dispute is private and settled and the victims support the arrangement. The offences alleged are 143, 147, 283, 294(b), 323, 341, 427 read with 149 IPC. The State opposes quashing solely on the basis of the settlement but concedes there is a settlement. The court examines binding Supreme Court precedents—State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh—which hold that the power under 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences can be exercised in private disputes where the parties have resolved the entire dispute, provided the offences are not of a heinous nature or under special statutes. The High Court emphasizes that the assessment is to be made with due regard to the antecedents of the accused, the conduct, and whether the crime is private in nature. It peruses the documents, including the victims’ affidavit, and finds the dispute private and the settlement genuine. Accordingly, it allows the criminal miscellaneous case and quashes all further proceedings in CC 949/2014 arising from Crime 723/2013. The decision echoes the Laxmi Narayan line of authority and Narinder Singh’s clarifications.
This revision petition under RPFC No. 462 of 2023 challenges a Kalpetta Family Court order in CRMP No.7/2023 directing the revision petitioner, Rijas M.T., to undergo ten months imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance arrears for 28 months (from 12.03.2021 to 12.01.2023) under Section 125(3) CrPC. The respondents Hafseena M and her two children sought arrears under MC No.21/2021 and obtained an order on 19.10.2022, directing Rs. 8,000 per month. The petitioner contends the Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a punishment for more than one month for the entire default and argues procedural lapses in not issuing a distress warrant and improper execution timing. He cites Article 21 of the Constitution, the law in Rajnesh v. Neha, Shahada Khatoon, and related authorities to claim a limited remedy. The respondents argue the Court acted within statutory authority, with arrears spanning 28 months and the execution filed within one year under the proviso to Section 125(3). The Kerala High Court, after surveying Mohammed Kutty, Shahada Khatoon, Alora Sundaran, Sunil Kumar, Santhosh, Gopika, Kuldip Kaur, and contemporary Rajnesh/Aditi alias Mithi jurisprudence, upholds that the maximum penalty is “one month for each month’s default,” not merely a single month for the total default. It confirms the ten-month sentence, notes that the petitioner had no assets, and holds that post-Rajnesh affidavits can streamline proceedings. The petition is dismissed; however, if arrears are paid in full before completion of the sentence, the petitioner shall be released on that date, and payments will be credited toward arrears.
This Kerala High Court division bench hears OP (CAT) No.72 of 2022, challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order directing Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (HOCL) and its General Manager (HR) to disburse arrears of salary and other benefits to the legal heirs of Sri P.C. James, treating him as in service from 01.01.2008 to 12.09.2019. The factual matrix extends from James" 2005 accident during employment, through post‑trauma determinations, disability certifications, gratuity/PF claims, and a Workmen’s Compensation award. The petitioners contend Annexure‑A9, issued by the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in 2017, conclusively closed the matter, holding no disability benefits prior to 29.10.2010, making the Tribunal’s relief beyond its scope; they rely on Pavithran and related authorities to argue that such an order cannot bind further remedies. The respondents (late Sri P.C. James’s heirs and the PWD Commissioner) argue that Annexure‑A9 is not a final adjudication and that the right to disability benefits can be pursued under the PWD Act; they contend the Tribunal’s findings on the alleged retroactive relieving order (Ext.P5(3)) were correct in exposing improprieties. The court upholds a purposive, liberal construction of the PWD Act, finds that Annexure‑A9 does not bar relief, and confirms the Tribunal’s order with modifications, notably computing arrears from 27.04.2018 (gratuity credit) and directing payment within one month of judgment.
This petition challenges the Government’s denial and subsequent non-approval of the petitioner’s appointment as H.S.A. (Social Studies) at SN Trusts High School, Nattika, for the period 15-07-2002 to 07-03-2006. The petitioner had been appointed earlier (Ext. P1). The primary grounds for rejection (Exts. P2, P3, P4, P8, P17) were lack of vacancy in a newly opened school and the view that vacancies should be filled from protected teachers listed by the authorities. The petitioner contends that government orders (Exts. P13, P14) and prior directions in Ext. P15 required consideration of relaxation under Rule 3, Chapter I of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) to grant the appointment, noting that similarly situated persons were accommodated. In the course of the judgment, the court cites State of Kerala v. Nadeera (2013 (2) KLT 88), clarifying that the obligation of a Manager to appoint a protected teacher in a newly opened school arises only when the authorities forward a list of such teachers; without a list, the Manager cannot be faulted. The court also refers to Ext. P15 (judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1250/2014) to direct reconsideration and sets aside Ext. P17. The matter is remanded to the Government for reconsideration with hearing, guided by Exts. P13, P14, and the provisions of KER, to be completed within four months.
The petitioner, a contractor M/S ABCON ENGINEERING, challenges Ext.P12, a blacklisting order that cancelled its licence in relation to road works under agreement No.SE(K)/186/2017-18 (completed 30.03.2019). The Defence to the petition shows that the work was completed within an extended period and certified as defect-free, with DLPloss attributed to post-completion events. After completion, authorities released security deposits (Exts.P4–P6) and issued related certificates (Exts.P1–P3). A surprise inspection (Operation Saral Rasta, 24.09.2019) led VACB to prepare a report alleging quality shortfalls, implicating the contractor and certain engineers. Based on VACB’s report, Ext.P9 issued a show-cause notice and Ext.P12 blacklisting followed. The petitioner contends that no specific findings or copies of the VACB report were furnished, violating natural justice, and that the grounds for blacklisting do not arise from the facts. The Respondents contend that due process was followed and rely on the VACB report. The Court notes that blacklisting entails civil consequences and requires a fair opportunity to respond. Relying on Supreme Court authority (UMC Technologies; Nasir Ahmad; Erusian; Kulja; Yakoob), it holds Ext.P9 invalid for lacking particulars and the VACB report, and sets aside Ext.P12, directing a proper, detailed show-cause, service of the VACB report, hearing, and a fresh decision within three months from judgment, preserving fairness and due process.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings arising from Crime No.844/2019 of Nooranadu Police Station, and S.C. No.659/2021 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur. The single-judge bench, led by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, notes that the accused, Yedhu Krishnan @ Shambhu, faces charges under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 427 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution case alleges wrongful confinement, assault with filthy language, and mischief. The petitioner and the victims have entered into a settlement, with affidavits supporting a desire to discontinue prosecution, and the Public Prosecutor acknowledging the settlement though expressing reservations about quashing solely on that basis. Relying on binding Supreme Court decisions, the court delineates the framework for exercising the inherent powers under 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where there is a civil/private character and where the parties have resolved the entire dispute, while cautioning that quashing is inappropriate for heinous/serious offences or offences under special statutes and for offences like 307 IPC or arms offences which have a broader societal impact. After evaluating the facts, the court finds the dispute private in nature, accepts the settlement, and accordingly allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings in the connected case.
This is a WA (Writ Appeal) No. 1905 of 2022 arising against an interim order dated 25 November 2021 in WP(C) No.13556 of 2020 issued by the Kerala High Court. The appellants are two third-party applicants who sought leave to file an intra-court appeal impugning the interim directions that opened the St. Ignatious Orthodox Syrian Church (Onakkoor Sehiyon) at a time of factional disputes within the Malankara Church. The interim order, in effect, allowed the 2nd petitioner (the Vicar) to conduct services and manage church properties under the Malankara Church Constitution of 1934, with a District Collector and Advocate Commissioner overseeing administration until elections could be held and the Parish Register updated. The challenge to the interim order rested on the premise that questions concerning church governance, including appointment of priests, elections to the managing committee, and updating parish membership, fall within ecclesiastical administration and civil adjudication; they argued such issues are not appropriate for public-law writs and should be resolved in a civil forum, not by public-law remedy. The High Court relied on the 1934 Constitution and Supreme Court precedent (K.S. Varghese) to hold that internal church governance must adhere to the 1934 Constitution and that normally the church should not be closed. The Division Bench (Alexander Thomas, J. & Sophy Thomas, J.) ultimately refused leave for intra-court appeals and dismissed the writ appeal, directing the third-party applicants to pursue impleadment before the Single Judge and expediting final disposal of the main matter.
Joseph, the appellant, challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor award in O.P.(M.V.) No.782/2014 for injuries sustained on 10 May 2014 when his scooter was struck by a motorcycle insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal held the rider negligent and the insurer liable, awarding Rs 11,98,051 with interest at 8% per annum. The appellant contends the compensation is inadequate across several heads and that the Tribunal erred in assessing income and disability. The High Court, in a single‑judge order, re‑examines the evidence and medical records, holding that the appellant, a skilled sawmill worker, could have earned a higher monthly income. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, it fixes the monthly income at Rs 12,000 for 2014 (instead of Rs 7,500 noted by the Tribunal). It also holds the appellant to be 100% functionally disabled due to aphasia and other neurological impairments, with future prospects added at 10%. The Court adopts Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. for bystander expenses, ruling at least one bystander at Rs 5,000 per month (total Rs 5,40,000). It also grants Rs 20,000 for loss of amenities, and an additional Rs 12,50,930 after adjusting the earlier award. The appeal is allowed in part, the award modified, and the insurer directed to deposit the enhanced amount within three months with interest and costs.
W.P.(C) Nos.35061 and 35361 of 2018 This Writ Petition (Civil) nos. 35061/2018 and 35361/2018 before the Kerala High Court arose from protests at Nilakkal during the Sabarimala pilgrimage in 2018-19, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (11 SCC 1, 2019). Petitioners in 35061 were Suresh Kumar and Anojkumar (Chairman of Sabarimala Acharа Samrakshana Samithi) and others; petitioner in 35361 was P. Premchand. The petitioners alleged police excesses during protests against entry of women to Sabarimala and alleged unlawful arrests, assault, and destruction of property. They sought reliefs including prohibiting arrests without crime registration, a report on arrests under CrPC section 41 and 41B, and protection of right to protest under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25. The court examined evidence, including videos and police affidavits, and noted that eight police personnel were involved in excesses, with disciplinary actions already taken against some. The court ultimately held that violations of Section 41B(a) and the DGP’s circular (2011) were established in certain instances, and directed the State Police Chief to ensure strict compliance with 41B(a) and the circular, while declining other reliefs. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, emphasizing compliance over broader reliefs and non-interference with disciplinary proceedings except to ensure proper standards.”
W.P.(C). No.29499 of 2021 This writ petition challenges Ext. P4, an Insurance Ombudsman Award, and seeks a declaration that the Insurance Ombudsman has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to insurance policies. The petitioner’s late husband took multiple housing loans in 2018 from the 4th respondent bank and, as security, two insurance policies were arranged. Premium funding for one policy (20910176) was paid directly by the bank; a second policy (20924808) was accepted in proposal form but not issued, despite the premium having been collected. The bank and the insurer informally processed the matter within a convoluted timeline, including a long delay before any communication about non-issuance and a refund of the premium only after a claim was lodged by the petitioner following the insured’s death from Covid-19 in 2021. The Insurance Ombudsman, after hearing, held that though there were favourable findings for the petitioner, the complaint could not be entertained due to pecuniary jurisdiction (claim above Rs 30 lakhs). The Court, however, examines the law on the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, the definition of “deficiency,” and the timing and manner of policy acceptance. Relying on precedents such as D. Srinivas and distinguishing older cases (Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba, Prasanna Devaraj), the Court holds the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to adjudicate non-issuance after premium and directs reconsideration within three months, emphasizing consumer protection norms and regulatory mandates governing timely processing of proposals and refunds.
The petition, WP(C) No. 37913 of 2022, challenges the denial of registration under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 for nine workers employed by the writ petitioner establishment (three individuals and a partnership firm). The 2nd respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer, initially refused registration on the ground that the petitioner establishment had not started functioning; the 3rd respondent Board and the 1st respondent’s orders (Exts. P1–P4) upheld this position. The writ petition appealed, invoking Article 14 and relying on a Division Bench decision in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v Nishad M.B (2022 (5) KHC 367 (DB)), which suggested that attached workers with a special skill could be registered irrespective of unit commencement. Respondents argued that unit start is a prerequisite for registration. The court examines the statutory framework and the distinction between attached and unattached workers under Section 2(m) of the Act, Rule 26A, and the relevant provisions. It overrules earlier pronouncements in Rajeev (Supra) and Manzoor (Supra) as to unattached workers and endorses the principles from Raghavan (Full Bench) and Theresa Jose. Ultimately, the court allows the writ petition, quashes Exts. P1–P4, and directs registration of the petitioners’ workers within six weeks, with cards to be issued within 15 days, permitting them to work as attached workers for the petitioner establishment.
