High Court Kerala High Court

K.R. Sasidharan Nair vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director on 17 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.R. Sasidharan Nair vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director on 17 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36255 of 2009(B)


1. K.R. SASIDHARAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.NANDINI

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :17/06/2010

 O R D E R
                       K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
                        ...........................................
                      WP(C).NO.36255 OF 2009
                       ............................................
          DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a retired employee of the first respondent

Company, has filed this writ petition claiming that certain amounts due

to him have not been paid to him, till date. The petitioner was

dismissed from service. However, his dismissal was the subject matter

of adjudication of the Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.D.No.26 of 2004.

As per Ext.P1 award, he was directed to be reinstated. He had

approached this court for the implementation of the award in his

favour. During the pendency of the said case, he entered into a

settlement with the respondent and he was reinstated. He complains

that the whole amount that was due to him as per the settlement has not

been paid, till date. The respondent is not willing to pay the amount.

2. Adv.K.Anand appears for the respondent. A counter affidavit

has been filed on behalf of the respondent submitting that as per the

terms of settlement, the entire amount has already been paid.

Subsequently, the petitioner continued in service and has also retired. It

Wpc 36255/2009 2

is submitted that this writ petition has been filed as an after thought.

3. It is not possible for this court to adjudicate the disputed

questions of fact that arise for determination in this writ petition, as

evident from the nature of the dispute. The petitioner will have to

pursue other legal remedies, if he has any subsisting grievance against

the respondent.

4. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of without prejudice

to the rights of the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies, if he has

any subsisting grievance in the matter.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

lgk