IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20690 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R. MOHANDAS, UPPER DIVISION CLERK COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA. (VALIYAVEETTIL, ALAPPT KARUNAGAPPALLY). BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER, SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE OF COIR DEVELOPMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, PROJECT OFFICER (COIR), ALAPPUZHA- 688 012. 4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA- 688 012. 5. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA -688 012. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER R4 & R5 BY ADV. MR.K.S. HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC. MR.GEORGE MATHEW, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 20690 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/10/2006 IN WP(C) NO. 25134/2006 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/10/2010 IN WP(C) NO. 1988/2009 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS3-2141-11 DATED 22/03/2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20690 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an employee of the Kerala State Co- operative Coir Marketing Federation Ltd., otherwise known as 'Coirfed'. Alleging that dearness allowance at the rates applicable to Government employees was denied to employees of Coirfed, the trade union representing the employees had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 25134 of 2006 in this Court. By Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 27.10.2006, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that the trade union should approach the Coirfed with a representation seeking redressal of their grievances, in which event the Coirfed shall consider the same and take a decision thereon. Later, the petitioner filed A.R.C.No.110 of 2008 before the Co-operative Arbitration Court seeking payment of dearness allowance at the rates applicable to Government employees. In that arbitration case, he filed I.A.No.97 of 2008 for an interim order in terms of the reliefs prayed for in the arbitration case. By Ext.P2 order passed on 11.11.2008, the Co- operative Arbitration Court directed the Coirfed to pay dearness allowance to the employees of the Coirfed at the rates applicable to Government employees with ffect from 1.1.2004 within 15 months W.P.(C) No.20690 of 2011 2 from the date of the order. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.1988 of 2009 in this Court seeking implementation of that order. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 27.10.2010, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that the order passed by the Co- operative Arbitration Court is an executable order and therefore the petitioner should take steps to execute the order instead of seeking the intervention of this Court. The petitioner thereafter moved the Director of Coir Development. By Ext.P4 order passed on 22.3.2011, the Director of Coir Development authorised the Assistant Registrar, Project Office (Coir), Alappuzha to execute Ext.P2 order. The execution petition filed by the petitioner was forwarded to that officer. The Assistant Registrar, Project Office (Coir), Alappuzha passed Ext.P5 order dated 30.3.2011 on that petition directing payment of dearness allowance to employees of the Coirfed from 1.1.2004 at the rates applicable to Government employees. This writ petition is filed contending that notwithstanding the said direction, till date, respondents 2 and 3 have not taken further steps to execute the order of the Arbitration Court. It is also alleged that respondents 4 and 5 have wilfully and deliberately denied dearness allowance to the employees. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to implement Ext.P2 order of the Arbitration Court. He W.P.(C) No.20690 of 2011 3 also seeks a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to comply with Ext.P2 order and a declaration to the effect that the delay on the part of the respondents to implement Ext.P2 order of the Arbitration Court is arbitrary, mala fide, illegal and unconstitutional. 2. Shorn of details, what the petitioner seeks is a direction from this Court to respondents 4 and 5 to pay dearness allowance to him and other employees of the Coirfed in terms of Ext.P2 order passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. Seeking the very same relief, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.1988 of 2009 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 27.10.2010 with the observation that Ext.P2 is an executable order, and therefore, the petitioner should take steps to execute that order. He accordingly filed an execution petition which has now been forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, Project Office (Coir), Alappuzha pursuant to the authorisation issued by the Director of Coir Development. In view of Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, the petitioner should have pursued the application for execution to execute the order and to realise the money. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner cannot seek the intervention of this Court. What the petitioner really seeks is an order which was once declined by this Court, when Ext.P3 judgment was W.P.(C) No.20690 of 2011 4 delivered. What is produced as Ext.P5 is only an order passed by the officer executing Ext.P2 order whereby he directed the respondents to comply with the order within three months. If within that period, Coirfed did not implement Ext.P2, it is for the Executing Officer to take further steps to execute that order. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner should pursue the execution petition filed by him instead of seeking the intervention of this Court. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to take steps to finalise the execution of Ext.P2 order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.