IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10688 of 2004(V)
1. MACHERI ABDUL RAZAK, S/O. MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI.
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (ARREAR COLLECTION)
3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :08/02/2011
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P (C) No. 10688 OF 2004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 8th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein was the claimant in W.C.C. No. 129 of 1988
before the 3rd respondent and was awarded compensation in respect
of the injuries, reckoning the disability as 100 %. Being aggrieved of
the said order, the insurer of the employer, who deposited amount on
behalf of the employer, preferred an appeal as MFA 540 of 1990
before this Court. In the course of final hearing, it was observed by the
Division Bench of this Court that the medical evidence revealed only
8% permanent disability and hence the challenge raised by the
insurer/appellant in the appeal had to be sustained in the light of the
decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sreedharan (1995 (1) KLT 275). It was also
observed by the Division Bench that, pursuant to the interim order
passed by this Court in C.MP 3102 of 1990, the claimant was
permitted to withdraw a sum of ` 25,000/- from the amount deposited
by the appellant/insurance company and the said amount was much
more than what the claimant would be entitled to, if the compensation
was assessed at 8% permanent disability. It was specifically observed
by the Bench that, since the above amount had already been released
W.P. (C) No. 10688 of 2004
: 2 :
to the claimant, the Court did not wish to pass any order directing the
claimant to repay any amount to the appellant/insurer, thus making it
clear that, the appellant/insurer would be entitled to withdraw the
balance amount deposited with the Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation at the time of filing appeal.
2. In spite of specific observation made by the Division Bench of
this Court as per Ext. P1 judgment in MFA 540 of 1990, it appears that,
a requisition was made before the Revenue authorities, pursuant to
which Exts. P3 to P5 notices have been issued under the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to realize a sum of ` 1,00,246/- with
interest and collection charges, which made the petitioner to approach
this Court by filing the above writ petition wherein interim order of stay
was granted. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the second
respondent that the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated
pursuant to the requisition made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Kozhikode, i.e. 3rd respondent, stating that, there was an excess
payment to the said extent. But, the 3rd respondent has not filed any
counter affidavit and it is not discernible from the proceedings, whether
the 3rd respondent had released the entire amount deposited by the
insurance company to the petitioner or whether only sum of `.25,000/-
was released pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in
CMP. No. 3102 of 1990.
W.P. (C) No. 10688 of 2004
: 3 :
3. Going by the specific pleadings raised by the petitioner,
particularly in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that, this Court while
passing Ext. P1 judgment in MFA did not direct the petitioner to repay a
sum of ` 25,000/- received by him (by virtue of the interim order in
CMP 3102 of 2009) and the materials on records, it is revealed that the
the recovery proceedings are bad in law.
4. In the above circumstances, Exts. P2 to P5 notices issued
under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are set aside. However, it is
made clear that, if any amount over and above the said amount of `
25,000/- has been released to the petitioner pursuant to the deposit
effected by the insurance company before the 3rd respondent, the said
extent of excess payment, which came to the hands of the petitioner
could be recovered after issuing necessary clarification from the
requisitioning authority; by issuing a fresh notice pointing out the
actual facts and figures. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above
declaration.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd