IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6665 of 2010(G)
1. TRICHUR WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.),
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No.6665 of 2010-G
----------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved of the
recovery proceedings being pursued by the respondent as evident
from Ext.P3 in furtherance to the order of the Labour Court,
Ernakulam in C.P.No.71 of 1993, as stated in sixth para of the Writ
Petition. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the Labour Court,
Ernakulam under Section 33(C) (2) of the ID Act, the petitioner had
approached this Court by filing O.P.No.19047 of 2001 and pursuant
to the satisfaction of the condition by remitting 50% of the amount
awarded and the cost, the matter was remanded. Accordingly, the
Labour Court re-considered the matter and passed fresh order
dtd.31.7.2002, which was subjected to challenge by filing
O.P.No.37567 of 2002. Even though the interim order of stay was
passed by this Court in the said Original Petition, it was
subsequently dismissed on 10.7.2006. Later, W.A.No.640 of 2007
challenging the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge was also
dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court as per the verdict
W.P(C) No.6665 of 2010-G 2
dtd.22.9.2009. Thus the matter has became final.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
plight of the petitioner Society is deplorably poor and by virtue of
the frustrating circumstances, it is not even able to pay the salary to
the existing employees. It is stated that there are only 25
employees and due to the liability of the petitioner, four more
workers are sought to be discharged in a phased manner and the
matter has already taken up before the Government, where it is
pending. Because of the coercive steps being pursued, the
petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the second
respondent for immediate interference.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances and also in view
of the fact that the aggrieved parties namely the employees
concerned, who are beneficiaries of the verdict passed by the
Labour Court, are not before this Court, no positive relief to set
aside Ext.P3 can be granted by this Court. More so, when the
matter has become final by virtue of the verdict passed by the
Division Bench in W.A.No.640 of 2007 dismissing the appeal
preferred by the petitioner.
W.P(C) No.6665 of 2010-G 3
5. However, taking note of the facts and circumstances, this
Court finds that the second respondent can be directed to consider
and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, so as to safe guard the
interest of all concerned, in the best possible manner. Accordingly,
the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate
orders on Ext.P4, in accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible and communicate the outcome to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab
W.P(C) No.6665 of 2010-G 4