IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1283 of 2005()
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
5. THE STAFF WELFARE FUND COMMITTEE,
Vs
1. P.M.JOHN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW,
... Respondent
2. K.J.ANTONY, AGED 55 YEARS,
3. V.P.VISWANATHAN,
4. M.BALASUBRAMANIYAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
5. P.M.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SC, KSRTC
For Respondent :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated : 27/06/2005
O R D E R
PL 55
TM 3
SP 2
BM 2
K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR & @@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
K.HEMA, JJ.@@
jAAAAAAAAAAA
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
W.A.No.1283 of 2005 @@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2005.@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
JUDGMENT@@
jEEEEEEEE
((HDR 0
{WA 1281/05}@@
AAAAAAAAAAAA
:: # ::@@
jAAAAAAA
))
HE 1
Abdul Gafoor, J.@@
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
This writ appeal is filed by the Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation and its officials
challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge
which directs payment of provident fund dues and staff
welfare fund amounts forthwith to respondents 1 to 5 in
this appeal.
2.It is submitted by the counsel for the
appellants that the purpose of this writ appeal is to
remove that portion of the judgment in the writ
petition, which directs payment of cost of Rs.1,500/=
each to the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 5. The
cost for filing a writ appeal will be more than the
cost so ordered. Therefore, the decision to file an
appeal is not a wise one. Moreover, the learned single
Judge had already exercised the discretion by directing
disbursement of amounts to a retired employees, who had
been clamoring for the provident fund amount remitted
by them, which cannot be delayed by the employer, on
their retirement. Therefore, there was justification
in that regard. We find no perversity in the exercise
of such discretion to invite interference. The learned
single Judge has given the direction taking into
account the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.289/01.
Therefore, the writ appeal fails, dismissed.
However, the cost ordered in the judgment impugned
shall be limited to Rs.2,000/- in all.
SP 1
JN
(K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR)@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
JUDGE.@@
AAAAAAAAA
(K.HEMA)@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
JUDGE@@
AAAAAAAA
sk/-
PA
…….T…….T…….T…….T…….L…….T…….T…….T…………J
((HDR 0
))
HE 2
SP 2
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
K.HEMA, JJ.@@
jAAAAAAAAAAA
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
W.A.No.1283 of 2005@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
JUDGMENT@@
jEEEEEEEE
27th June, 2005.@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –