High Court Kerala High Court

M/S. Sureksha Kuries And Loans (P) … vs The Hon’Ble Labour Court on 27 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
M/S. Sureksha Kuries And Loans (P) … vs The Hon’Ble Labour Court on 27 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15589 of 2008(E)


1. M/S. SUREKSHA KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE HON'BLE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR.

3. THE TAHSILDAR,

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

5. N. BINDU,

6. K.C. RADIKA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :27/05/2008

 O R D E R
                          S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                     W.P.(C).No. 15589 OF 2008
                       = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                 Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008.

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5,P8 and P10. Exts.P5

and P10 are notices for recovery of amounts covered by order in

C.P.No.63/2001 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner

is not challenging that order in this writ petition. Without

challenging that order, the petitioner cannot challenge the

recovery proceedings for recovery of the amounts covered by

that order. Therefore the challenge against Exts.P5 and P10 are

unsustainable. Ext.P8 is only a notice issued by the Industrial

Tribunal, Palakkad directing the petitioner to appear in a petition

under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The same

cannot be validly challenged by the petitioner because the

petitioner has to appear before the Tribunal and make his

contentions before the Tribunal.

W.P.(C).No. 15589 OF 2008 2

Therefore I do not find any merit in the writ petition and

the same is accordingly dismissed. This is without prejudice to

the right of the petitioner to challenge the order in

C.P.No.63/2001, if he can legally do the same at this point of

time.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

bkn/-