IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13789 of 2008(N)
1. K.K.RENUKA, D/O.K.K.KUNHIKANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION
... Respondent
2. SMT.PILAKKAL SUSHEELA,
3. KUMARI SHEEMA, D/O.LATE KUNNIMMAL KORAN,
4. SHIJU, S/O.LATE KUNNIMMAL KORAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
For Respondent :SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.13789/2008-N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner
challenging Ext.P5 order by which the first respondent
rejected the application to receive the list of witness and
issue summons to him to produce certain documents, as per
Exts.P3 and P4.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 to 4.
3. While admitting the writ petition, this Court
stayed the passing of the final order and it was clarified
that the proceedings can go on. But, it is submitted by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4
that after the interim order was passed by this Court, the
further proceedings and taking of evidence and hearing have
not been completed and the matter is still pending at that
stage.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the examination of those witnesses are required in
support of his defence before the Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner. One witness is the Secretary of the
W.P.(C). No.13789/2008
-:2:-
Sreekandapuram Range Chethu Thozhilali Union, who was
examined as RW4 and has to be recalled. But, he did not
produce the wage register summoned by the Commissioner. At
that point of time, he had deposed that Wage Register for
the period from 1988-89 are not traceable. But,
subsequently those registers have been traced out,
according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
remaining witness is the Excise Inspector, Thaliparamba
Excise Range, who has to be examined for proving the Tree
Tax Register for the period from 1988-89. The Excise
Inspector, Sreekandapuram Excise Range has already been
examined. But, he had deposed that the Tree Tax Register
is in the custody of the Excise Inspector, Thaliparamba
Excise Range.
5. It is true that the Commissioner has taken a view
in Ext.P5 that the petitioner is only trying to get over
the adverse evidence on record and to prolong the matter.
But, in the light of the contentions of the parties, it is
only proper that the petitioner is allowed to adduce
evidence, especially, in the light of the fact that the
documentary evidence as sought for by the petitioner is not
before the Commissioner now and no prejudice will be caused.
6. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 order is set
aside. The first respondent is directed to allow the
W.P.(C). No.13789/2008
-:3:-
petitioner to examine these two witnesses to prove the
documents which are sought to be proved through them.
7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos, 2 to 4
submitted that a time frame has to be fixed by this Court
for concluding the evidence and passing the order since the
matter has already been delayed and the writ petition
itself was pending for the last two years. Therefore, the
first respondent is directed to complete the examination of
the witnesses and to dispose of the matter within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms