IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 19398 of 2002(H)
1. M.K.MOIDUTTY, S/O.SAIDALAVI HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR TALUK,
4. KOTTAYIL HAMZA, S/O.ALAVI,
5. PARAPPURATH KUNHIMOHAMMED,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :21/03/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
--------------------------
O.P.NO. 19398 OF 2002
-------------------------
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MARCH, 2007
JUDGMENT
By Ext.P1 order in C.P.No.17/95, the Labour Court, Kozhikode
directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.31,500/- and
Rs.34,500/- to respondents 4 and 5 herein. Ext.P1 was passed on
31.7.1998. It appears that the workmen involved approached the 2nd
respondent for coercive proceedings for recovery of the same. The
petitioner claims that he has paid the amounts due as per Exts.P2 and
P3 receipts dated, 30.03.02. The petitioner’s complaint in the original
petition is that in spite of the same, the 3rd respondent is continuing
with the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of the
amounts due as per Ext.P1. The petitioner, therefore seeks a direction
to the 2nd respondent to give necessary directions to the 3rd respondent
to drop the revenue recovery proceedings and also to direct the 3rd
respondent to return the movable properties attached on 4.12.01 in
the revenue recovery proceedings.
2. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter affidavits, wherein
they have categorically denied that they have not received any amount
from the petitioner in compliance with Ext.P1 order. They also
O.P.No.19398/02 2
disowned Exts.P2 and P3.
3. This being a disputed question of fact, I do not think
that I can decide that question in this original petition. Therefore, I
direct the 2nd respondent to consider the genuineness of Exts.P2 and
P3 and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after giving notice to
the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. However, the attached
movables need not be returned to the petitioner until a final
decision is taken. In view of the fact that although Ext.P1 order was
passed as early as on 31.7.98, even according to the petitioner he
has not taken any steps to comply with the order, I feel that the
petitioner should pay the costs of this original petition to the
respondents 4 and 5. Accordingly, the petitioner should pay
Rs.5,000/- to each of respondents 4 and 5 as costs in this original
petition. The 2nd respondent need consider the issue as directed in
this judgment only after the petitioner produces proof of payment of
costs to respondents 4 and 5. The costs shall be paid within two
weeks from today.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
O.P.No.19398/02 3