Dismissed

K.J.Peter v. Patil Ajith Bhagavat

Kerala HC18 Oct 2012Con.Case(C)/1186/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the contempt petition. The single judge concluded that the previous writ judgment directed only admitted liability to be paid, which was complied with, and held that the petitioners' claim for balance wages was a disputed liability not warranting contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

C.O.C.1186/12 closed; petitioner directed to work out remedies in appropriate proceedings for disputed liability.

K.J.Peter Vs Patil Ajith Bhagavat — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/26TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1186 of 2012 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.888/2012 DATED 22-05-2012

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS :

¶8

1. K.J.PETER, AGED 53 YEARS,S/O. JACOB,

¶9

H.NO.CC 10/1410, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1.

¶10

2. M.N.DASAN , AGED 64 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, H.NO.CC 10/996,

¶11

FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1.

¶12

3. P.S.VARGHESE , AGED 48 YEARS

¶13

S/O. SIMON, H.NO.CC 10/1247,

¶14

FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1.

¶15

4. K.K.RAFEEQUE , AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KOCHUNNY, H.NO.CC 2/236,

¶16

FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1.

¶17

5. C.H.AFSAL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA,

¶18

H.NO.CC 3/819, CHAKKARAYIDUKKU, KOCHI.

¶19

6. P.P.KABEER , AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN,

¶20

H.NO.CC 10/903(A), FORT KOCHI,KOCHI-1.

¶21

7. A.K.PINGALADAS , AGED 65 YEARS

¶22

S/O. KUMARAN, H.NO.CC 15/2087, KOCHI-5.

¶23

8. P.L.SUNNY , AGED 52 YEARS S/O. LASAR, H.NO.10/1510, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1.

¶24

9. K.A.SHAMSUDEEN , AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL MAJEED,

¶25

H.NO.6/711, BASAR ROAD, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-2.

¶26

10. C.H.ASLAM , AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA, H.NO.CC 3/377, UBAID ROAD MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-2.

¶27

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

¶28

COC. NO.1186/2012

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT :

¶30

PATIL AJITH BHAGAVAT, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. BHAGAVAT RAO PATIL, SECRETARY CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM.

¶31

R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKARA,SC,COCHIN BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶32

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

COC. NO.1186/2012

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶36

AI:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 888/12 DTD. 22.5.2012 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.

¶37

AII:- COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DTD. 1.6.12 TO THE IST RESPONDENT. AII(a):- COPY A.D. CARD DTD. 2.6.12.

¶38

AIII:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 10.7.12 TO THE IST RESPONDENT. AIII(a):- COPY OF THE A.D. CARD DTD. 11.7.12.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶45

........................................ C.O.C.1186/2012

¶46

.............................................. Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2012

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Petitioners filed W.P.(C).888/12 complaining that they

¶49

were not paid wages for the period from 1.4.2009 to 15.1.2010. It was also their case that their agreed rate of wages is 4200 per month. By judgment dated 22.5.2012, the writ petition was disposed of directing that the amounts due shall be quantified and paid. Corporation has paid 4000 per month for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.8.2009 and according to the Corporation, there is no record for proving that the petitioners have worked for the subsequent period and hence, they have no liability.

¶50

Although the petitioners contend that it was under the direction of the Mayor that they worked and that the agreed rate was `4200 and therefore, they are entitled to be paid the balance amount, still facts remains that such a claim made by the petitioners is a disputed liability. In any case, the only question is whether there is compliance with the

¶51

C.O.C.1186/12

¶52

¶53

directions in the judgment. A reading of the judgment shows that all that was directed was the admitted liability should be quantified and paid. This has been done. Therefore, this is not a case for proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. On the other hand, if the petitioners are still aggrieved, it is for them to work out their remedies in appropriate proceedings.

¶54

C.O.C is closed.

¶55

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶56

mrcs

¶57

/true copy/ P.A. To Judge

K.J.Peter v. Patil Ajith Bhagavat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J.Peter v. Patil Ajith Bhagavat

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

K.G Sunil Vs Branch Manager

Gills Benny Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

S.S.D. Oil Mills Company Limited Vs Intelligence Officer (Ib)

Satish Nayak Vs the Authorised Officer

George K.P. Vs Spl.Tahsildar(Rr)

C.Sebastian Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.