The High Court of Kerala dismissed this writ appeal filed by the State of Kerala and the Director of Urban Affairs against a judgment allowing salary deduction for welfare fund contributions, holding that the judgment caused no illegality.
Writ appeal dismissed with no intervention by this court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932
WA.No. 620 of 2007(B)
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29870/2005 Dated 13/07/2006 ....................
APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS1 AND 2 IN THE WPC
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC
ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC,TVM CORPN. FOR R2 SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.S.L.SAJI FOR R1 SRI.R.ANILKUMAR(MANNANTHALA) FOR R1
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. No.620 OF 2007-B
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J
The first respondent filed the writ petition with the following prayers;
“(i) call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P5 order issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the extent it prohibits the 3rd respondent Corporation from effecting salary deduction from its employees for the purpose of payment of monthly contribution and instalments of loan payable by such employees who are members of the Petitioner Welfare Fund.
(ii) declare that in view of Exts.P3 judgment the 2nd respondent has no manner of right to interfere with the salary deduction being effectively made by the 3rd respondent Corporation from its employees for the purpose of payment of monthly contribution and instalments of loan payable by such employees who are members of the Petitioner Welfare Fund.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd Respondent Corporation to continue effecting salary deduction from its employees for the purpose of payment of monthly contribution and instalments of loan payable by such employees who are members of the Petitioner Welfare Fund. “
Judge allowed the Writ Petition. It is against the said judgment,
:2 :
WA.No.620/2007
this appeal has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition.
WA.No.620/2007
:3 :
In view of these reasons, we are satisfied that there is no
illegality in the judgment warranting interference.
Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed.
(J. CHELAMESWAR) CHIEF JUSTICE
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE
vi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the writ petition unders court below allowing salary deduction without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Whether the impugned judgment allowing salary deduction is illegal as it violates a final decree passed by the civil court.
State of Kerala
Director of Urban Affairs
Kerala Municipal Thozhilali Welfare Fund
Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram
J. Chelameswar
Antony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
