IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9475 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.MATHEW, W/O.MATHAI, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNAMKUZHAKKAL HOSUE, KOLANY P.O.,THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. THE ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAURAM. 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KARALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR,KOZHIKODE. 3. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM,OFFICE OF THE ABKARI WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM. SC SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.9475 OF 2010 (H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a abkari Contractor in Thaliparamba Excise Range during the year 1990-91. According to the petitioner he had made certain excess payments to the first respondent towards overtime wages which was held as not payable in terms of declaration of law as per ExtP1 judgment. It is stated that subsequently, during 1996-1997 he was an abkari contractor in Palai Excise Range. There he had committed certain defaults and incurred some liability. 2. In this writ petition all that the petitioner submits is that the excess payment allegedly made by him in so far as Taliparamba Excise range shall be adjusted towards the liability that he has in Palai. Urging this he has filed Ext.P5 representation, which is pending before the first respondent and he seeks a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5. 3. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents also. Although standing counsel does not raise any WPC.No.9475 /2010 :2 : objection against the prayer sought for considering the representation, he submits that as Ext.P5 representation is dated 25.3.2008, it will be in the interest of the petitioner to file a fresh one. 4. Having heard the both sides, I dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the first respondent urging his claim for adjustment of the alleged excess payment towards the liability. It is directed that if the petitioner files a representation as above, within two weeks from today, the first respondent shall decide on the same with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of this writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.9475 /2010 :3 :