IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 2430 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDUL RAHMAN SAKAFI AGED 43 YARS, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED SECRETARY, THE E-LEEMUL ISLAM COMPLEX PARAPPANANGADI. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAYYID MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL S/O. ALIKOYA THANGAL, PARAYIL HOUSE PARAPPANANGADI. 2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION KOZHIKKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (ARREAR COLLECTION),TALUK OFFICE TIRURANGADI. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER PARAPPANGADI. ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI FOR R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.2430/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT:P1: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL, S.A.NO.13/99 DATED 12.7.09. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.3.2001. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN S.A.NO.13/99 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.05. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4.12.07. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF R.R.NOTICE U/S.7 OF THE R.R.ACT DATED 29.12.2007. TRUE COPY T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2430 Of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT The challenge is against the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the authority under the Kerala Shops and Establishments Act, as per Exhibit P3 and the consequent steps taken under the Revenue Recovery Act to realise an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 2. As per Exhibit P3, there is a direction to reinstate the 1st respondent in service or to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 3. Heard parties. 4. The petitioner is the Secretary of an institution which is running an Orphanage. It is averred that the 1st respondent was temporarily appointed as driver to take the students to the School. He was terminated from the School due to the complaint of students such as over speed, etc. 5. Mainly, it is contended that Exhibit P3 order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Exhibit P2 is a copy of the objection filed by the petitioner dated 16.3.2001. Exhibit P3 W.P.(C)No. 2430/08 -2- order shows that the authority was satisfied that there was denial of employment. Initially notice was issued by registered post to the petitioner; but for non-appearance, the petitioner was declared ex parte. The same was set aside and accordingly, the written statement was accepted. Evidence was taken in the matter and oral and documentary evidence of the 1st respondent was also adduced. A reading of Exhibit P3 shows that on the date of the examination of the 1st respondent, the petitioner herein or his Advocate was not present. In that view of the matter, evidence was closed and the case was decided on merits. 6. There is no proper explanation for the absence of the petitioner or his Advocate, on the date of taking evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have availed of the opportunity to adduce evidence, if any, in the matter. 7. The authority was of the view that the respondent, namely, the petitioner herein has not produced any evidence also. Accordingly, it was concluded that the appellant before the authority was in service from 7.11.1994 to 16.12.1998. The direction was to give reinstatement after giving the benefits W.P.(C)No. 2430/08 -3- denied or to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 8. No adequate reasons were shown in support of the termination. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the challenge against Exhibit P3 fails. 9. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in implementation of Exhibit P3, a notice was issued to the 1st respondent to join service, but he refused to join duty. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the petitioner had to reinstate the 1st respondent within 30 days of receipt of the copy of Exhibit P3, which is dated 26.11.2005. The 1st respondent filed an execution application before the authority concerned and the alleged notice to join service was issued only in December, 2007, after the execution application was filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had properly complied with the directions in Exhibit P3 and hence the steps in execution cannot be termed as illegal. 10. Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner has deposited Rs.20,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- has to be deposited, further. W.P.(C)No. 2430/08 -4- 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is conducting an Orphanage and the amount cannot be deposited in a lump and facility by way of easy instalments may be granted by this Court after considering various aspects. The Writ Petition is dismissed. If the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs.30,000/- in three equal monthly instalments starting from 15.9.2010, the revenue recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance till the expiry of three months' period. The amount will be deposited on or before 15th of September, October and November, 2010 and the 1st respondent will be entitled for withdrawal of the amount also. If the deposits are not made as directed above, then the proceedings for recovery can be continued in accordance with law. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn