Disposed

Harijan Vanitha Kaitharal Naithu v. Industrial Tribunal

Kerala HC20 Dec 2010WP(C)/34849/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged coercive recovery of compensation and back wages awarded to a blind former employee. The court, noting the petitioner's concession of liability but lack of funds, refused to quash the recovery but granted a month's extension for payment. It also directed the deposit of interim payments to the employee.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner time (until 15.2.2011) to pay the balance amount. The Tahsildar was directed to make interim deposits payable to the third respondent.

Harijan Vanitha Kaitharal Naithu Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 34849 of 2010(E)

PETITIONER(S):

HARIJAN VANITHA KAITHARAI NAITHU THOZHILALI VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.NO. HK INDUSTRIES M5, P.O. KERAADHEESWARAPURAM, VIA TH ANALUR, MALAPPURAM-676307 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PALAKKAD-678001.

¶14

TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE TIRUR-676101.

¶15

P.VENUGOPALAN, TEACHERS LODGE, NEAR AMUP SCHOOL, POST KERALADEESWARAPURAM THANALUR, MALAPPURAM-676307.

¶16

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶17

ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF FOR R3

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J

¶20

W.P(C) No.34849 of 2010-E

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2010.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

A co-operative society, the 'Harijan Vanitha Kaitharai Naithu Thozhilali Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham', registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, is the petitioner. Coercive steps of revenue recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶24

The amount sought to be recovered is the compensation awarded in favour of the 3^rd respondent by virtue of Ext.P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, in I.D.No.92/1999. It is evident that the petitioner had failed in their challenges against Ext.P1 because a writ petition filed in this regard was dismissed, as evident from Ext.P5 judgment. It is conceded that the 3^rd respondent is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.58,370/- from the petitioner Society as compensation and back wages in addition to other retirement benefits if any due.

¶25

According to the petitioner they are in a bad financial situation and it is conceded that they are willing to discharge the liability by way of instalments, so that the properties belonging to the petitioner Society can be saved from being proceeded

¶26

¶27

W.P(C) No.34849 of 2010-E

¶28

against.

¶29

Heard; counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted that the amount was awarded originally, as early as in the year 2001 and the petitioner Society had challenged the award before this Court. It is stated that in Ext.P4 judgment the matter was remanded and fresh award was issued as per Ext.P1 in the year 2008. It is further stated that the amount of compensation awarded will not carry any interest and that there is a purposeful attempt on the part of the petitioner Society to deprive of the benefits due under the award to the 3^rd respondent, who is now totally blind due to 'Glaucoma' and is not in a position to do any work to earn his livelihood. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent is strongly opposing the prayer of the petitioner in granting instalment facility for payment of the balance amount.

¶30

It is noticed that, by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court on 22.11.2010, the Society had already remitted a sum of Rs.15,000/-. I find no justification for the petitioner to deny the benefits due to the 3^rd respondent, under the above mentioned circumstances. The amount legitimately due to a worker, who was denied of employment long back, could not be

¶31

W.P(C) No.34849 of 2010-E 3

¶32

restrained merely on the basis of the plea that the petitioner Society is in a bad financial condition. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition to grant any relief as prayed for.

¶33

However, considering the situation as narrated by the petitioner Society time for payment of the balance amount is granted till 15.2.2011, making it clear that on the event of default for payment of the balance amount within the above said date, the respondents will be at liberty to pursue coercive steps of recovery.

¶34

The 2^nd respondent is directed to make deposit of the amount already paid, before the 1^st respondent Tribunal, and if any such deposit is made the 3^rd respondent will be at liberty to withdraw such amount.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.

¶36

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶37

Harijan Vanitha Kaitharal Naithu v. Industrial Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harijan Vanitha Kaitharal Naithu v. Industrial Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.J & J Timbers,Chalakkudy Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Jose K.Thomas Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Ramesh C.P. Vs Rto,Malappuram

Mary Joseph Vs the District Collector

V.G.Unnikrishnan Vs the Manager, State Bank of India & Anr.

M/S.Navin Oil Industries Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)