AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran,J
The writ appeal is filed against the impugned judgment which refused to grant the prayer sought for by the petitioner on the ground that there is no registered firm in existence. The specific contention of the appellants who were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that they were partners of a firm and that the loading and unloading carried out in the premises of the firm was by the owners, meaning partners. They also relied on Ext.P9 judgment of another Division Bench of this Court, which held that partners, who are owners, having not been conferred with a right to seek Rule 26A cards, cannot be obstructed from carrying out the loading and unloading in their own premises.
The Board and the union leaders – the party respondents, objected on the ground that Ext.P1 is a sham document, especially since there is only 1% partnership for all partners except appellants 1 and 2. The licence is in the name of the 1st appellant alone. Respondents are union leaders demanding work and no pool worker has been impleaded. However, the learned Counsel for the appellants points out that even the registration under the GST Act and all other documents show the firm being in existence and carrying on the business. In the appeal, Annexure A1 has been produced, which is the registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms. This document was not produced before the learned Single Judge. If the firm is registered, then the exact constitution of the partnership may not be very relevant. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the appellants to move a review before the learned Single Judge.
Writ Appeal is closed, leaving open all contentions before the learned Single Judge.