IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2905 of 2009()
1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOOPMENT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.M.THAMPI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.2905 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of December 2009
JUDGMENT
A.K.BASHEER, J.
Appellant impugns two interim orders dated 1st and 18th December,
2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.33549/09. By
the two orders, learned Single Judge has directed that the amount covered
under Ext.P1 order be recovered by the District Labour Officer forthwith.
2. Ext.P1 order was passed by the Labour Court under Section
33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act directing the appellant to pay a total
sum of Rs.2,75,000/- to respondent No.1 with future interest thereon at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realisation.
3. We do not propose to refer to the history of this long pending
litigation between the appellant and respondent No.1 who was admittedly
a workman under the former. Suffice it to say that respondent No.1
obtained Ext.P1 order from the Labour Court contending that the award
passed by the Labour Court in his favour in I.D.No.80/1985 dated,
February 24, 1987 had not been implemented and that the dues payable
thereunder had not been so far disbursed to him.
4. The learned Single Judge passed the impugned orders even
before the appellant filed its counter affidavit and thereby partially
allowed the writ petition in which the only prayer is to issue a writ of
mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to the appellant and
the revenue officials to recover the entire amounts due under Ext.P1.
W.A.2905 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
5. It is brought to our notice that the writ petition was filed on
November 20, 2009. The first impugned order was passed on December
1, 2009 directing the Labour Officer to initiate proceedings to recover the
amount covered under Ext.P1. Later the second order was passed
directing the Government Pleader to file compliance report. It is the
admitted position that the appellant has subsequently filed writ petition
36731/09 impugning Ext.P1 order.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri.B.Gopakumar, learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view
that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore the impugned orders are set aside.
7. Writ appeal is allowed. The learned Single Judge may pass
appropriate orders after hearing the parties in the two writ petitions
referred to above.
Writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(S.R.BANNURMATH)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
jes