IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 18848 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V. BALAKRISHNAN, VAYAL VEEDU, KODAKKAD, P.O. KODAKKAD, THRIKARIPUR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C,KASARAGOD. R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC KSTW CO.OP SOCIETY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18848 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short) who retired from service in the year 2005 on attaining superannuation. The second respondent is a Co-operative Society of the employees of the KSRTC. The petitioner had availed a loan from the second respondent Society. Towards repayment of the said loan, deductions were being made by the first respondent - KSRTC from the salary of the petitioner every month. Thus, deductions were being made without delay or default by the first respondent. However, the first respondent did not remit the deducted amounts to the second respondent. Thereby more than 15 instalments amounting to a substantial amount was retained by the first respondent, without any justification. In the above circumstances, notices were issued by the second respondent to the petitioner demanding the delayed amount with interest for the WPC No.18848/2010 2 period of delay. The petitioner then replied by Ext.P3 stating the above facts. The second respondent thereupon initiated arbitration proceedings which culminated Ext.P6 award. According to the petitioner, the amount covered by Ext.P6 award has to be paid by the first respondent. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent submitting that the total amount due from the petitioner works out to Rs.33,159/- as per Ext.R2(a) statement. Since the first respondent has already recovered the said amount from the salary of the petitioner, it is for the first respondent to pay the amount to the second respondent. 3. I have heard Adv.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar who appears for the first respondent also. 4. In view of the fact that the instalments in repayment of the loan availed by the petitioner were being recovered from his salary regularly, every month by the first respondent, it is the first respondent who is responsible for the delay in payment of the amounts to the second respondent. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the first respondent has to pay the amount of WPC No.18848/2010 3 Rs.33,159/- due as stated above to the loan account of the petitioner with the second respondent. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to make payment of the said amount, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/