Allowed

The Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur v. C.R.Narayana Das

Kerala HC12 Nov 2015RP/917/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review of an interim order regarding a revenue sale affecting employer and workmen, the Court modified directives for fund distribution. Funds previously with the Tahsildar were transferred to the District Labour Officer; the order now directs that officer to verify workmen identities from an Award and disburse amounts by cheque after deducting 6% interest for the purchaser.

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar is directed to transfer funds to the District Labour Officer subject to 6% interest deduction for the purchaser, who must then verify workmen and disburse amounts by cheque or to legal h

The Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur Vs… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/21ST KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 917 of 2014 () IN WP(C).5441/2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 5441/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18-02-2014

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN WP(C):

¶8

THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001.

¶9

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND ADDL. RESPONDENTS 6 TO 10 IN WP(C):

¶11

1. C.R.NARAYANA DAS, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.C.G.RAMAN, RESIDING AT 'ARAMANA', PALAZHI P.O. PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT MANAGING PARTNER SREE KALEESWARI TILE WORKS, PUTHUKKAD THRISSUR - 680 301.

¶12

2. C.L.ROSY, AGED 66 YEARS

¶13

W/O.THOMAS, VADAKKUDAM HOUSE, THORAVU SOUTH PUTHUKKAD P.O., THOROAVU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 301.

¶14

3. K.B.THANKAMANI, AGED 60 YEARS W/O.SANKUNNY, KANNOLU HOUSE, PALAZHI P.O.

¶15

PUTHUKKAD, NANMANIKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK

¶16

THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 301.

¶17

4. VENU

¶18

S/O.KOZHAMPURATH GOPALAN, VADAKKETHORAVU, PUTHUKKAD THRISSUR - 680 301.

¶19

5. C.R.KRISHNA MOHAN S/O.LATE C.G.RAMAN, RESIDING AT HEAVENLY VILLAS KUTTUR, THRISSUR - 680 013.

¶20

6. C.N.DILKUMAR

¶21

S/O.CHAKKUNGATHODIYIL NARAYANAN, PUTHUKKAD DESOM THORAVU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 301.

¶22

BY SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE BY SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶25

R.P. No.917 of 2014 In W.P(C). No.5441 of 2014

¶26

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2015.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The writ petition challenged a Revenue sale conducted, of the petitioner's property. The petitioner was the employer and addl. respondents 6,7,9 and 10 were his workmen. Addl. 8^th respondent was the person, who had purchased the property in the Revenue sale.

¶29

The learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioner, submits that, he has relinquished the Vakalath. The petitioner is present before this Court and this Court has heard the petitioner also.

¶30

While the writ petition was pending, on the request of the petitioner to remove the immovables from the industrial

¶31

R.P. No.917 of 2014 In W.P(C). No.5441 of 2014 2

¶32

premises, considering the grievances projected by the workmen also, regarding the non-payment of their dues, the matter was considered and an order passed, which is sought to be reviewed in the above review petition.

¶33

The review is only in so far as pointing out to the Court that the Tahsildar, who has been asked to proportionately distribute the money amongst the workmen, is unable to do so for reason of the entire money deposited by the petitioner with the Tahsildar, coming to Rs.7,44,115/-, having been transferred to the District Labour Officer, Thrissur on 25.03.2014 and 09.05.2014. In such circumstance, the District Labour Officer, Thrissur is suo motu imleaded as addl.11^th respondent. The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the said respondent also.

¶34

The direction in the order dated 18.08.2014 to distribute the money available with the Tahsidar shall now be an order directing the District Labour Officer, Thrissur, the addl. 11^th respondent, to do so in accordance with Ext.P1 Award. The

¶35

R.P. No.917 of 2014 In W.P(C). No.5441 of 2014 3

¶36

workmen or their authorised representatives are directed to appear before the District Labour Officer, Thrissur with an application, and on such application, the District Labour Officer, Thrissur shall verify the identity of the persons and disburse the amounts proportionately by way of Cheque to each of the workmen, who are included in P1 Award. In the event of any persons having died, then on the application of the legal heirs, such amounts shall be disbursed in the name of the legal heirs. All other contentions are left open to be considered in the writ petition itself.

¶37

It is submitted that the petitioner has also, in compliance with the interim order, deposited an amount of Rupees One lakh. Now that the District Labour Officer, Thrissur is entrusted with the task of proportionately distributing the amounts amongst the workmen, the said amount also shall be transferred to the District Labour Officer, Thrissur, but however after first deducting the 6% interest directed to be paid to the addl. 8^th respondent. It is made clear that no collection charges shall be deducted from the

¶38

R.P. No.917 of 2014 In W.P(C). No.5441 of 2014 4

¶39

amount of Rupees One lakh, now deposited with the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, after deducting the 6% interest, if not already deducted, shall transfer the entire remaining amounts to the District Labour Officer, Thrissur within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶40

The review petition is allowed with the above modification.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶43

// True Copy//

¶44

P.A. to Judge.

¶45

sp/12/11/15

The Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur v. C.R.Narayana Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur v. C.R.Narayana Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohini Facility Management Service Vs Suhas

Babitha B. and Others Vs Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council

Humayoon S. Vs Deputy Secretary

Mannur Service Co-Op.Rural Bank LTD.NO.F.1621 Vs P.P.Ramachandran

Chavakkad Range Kalluchethu Nadhya Vyavasaya Thozhilali Samithi Vs v.v.Rajeevan

A.Anzar Vs Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd.