IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 864 of 2009(J) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24666/2006 Dated 05/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- 1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ELAPPARA IDUKKI. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, L & R DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, (H&LB) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI MOHAMMED FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- P.Y.RAJU, PART-TIME WATCHMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI. ADV.MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No.864/2009-J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 O R D E R The review petition is filed contending that the observation made by this Court in the judgment in paragraph (2) that “ without passing orders on the said issue, by Ext.P6 he was ordered to be posted as a Part-time Sweeper in Karikode Village Office” is not correct, since orders have been placed as per Annexure-I dated 29/09/2006. It is further pointed out that since it is mentioned in the operative portion of the judgment that the writ petition is allowed as prayed for, the petitioner may claim other benefits based on prayer No.2 in the writ petition also 2. As per Annexure-I produced along with the review petition, the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki had reduced the period of work of the petitioner to 3 hours from 4.30 p.m to 7.30 p.m. It is also ordered that the petitioner will be eligible for salary and allowances in terms of the G.O. 145/2006/FIN dated 25/03/2006. It is prayed that the said order could not be placed on record as no counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition. R.P. No.864/2009 -:2:- 3. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner also. The review petition is disposed of in the following manner:- The observation contained in the judgment that without passing orders pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment Ext.P6 has been passed, is deleted. As regards the further clarification required, it is ordered that I have only considered the validity of Ext.P6 while rendering the judgment and that the only relief granted is regarding the transfer ordered as per Ext.P6. The review petition is accordingly disposed of. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms