IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27628 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- THE THRISSUR FOOD CORPORATION LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NO.R-730, MULAMKUNATHKAVU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS : ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA GODOWN, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR. 2. THE COURT OF THE COMMISSIONER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), THRISSUR. 3. ULAHANNAN, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY, THRISSUR. 4. ANNAMMA, W/O.ULAHANNAN, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY, THRISSUR. 5. CICY K JOHN, W/O.ELIAS, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY,THRISSUR. 6. MINOR ANGEL K ELIAS, S/O.ELIAS, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY, THRISSUR. 7. MINOR ELSON K ELIAS, S/O.ELIAS, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. - R1 SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH - R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.27628 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is one of the opposite parties in Exhibit P1 proceedings before the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. By Exhibit P1 order, petitioner was directed to deposit with the authority an amount of Rs.2,03850/- at the rate of 12% per annum from 22.5.1996 to the date of deposit. The payment in Exhibit-P1 was challenged in appeal by the 2nd opposite party. But it was affirmed. Apparently, the second opposite party was aggrieved by the direction in Exhibit P1, because it was directed to reimburse the first opposite party. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for modification of the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commission. This has been rejected by Exhibit P5 order essentially for the reason that the original authority is not entitled to consider an application for modification of any orders in circumstances where it W.P ( C) No.27628 of 2008 2 has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, steps have been taken for recovery of the amounts, as evidenced by P6. It is in the wake of this, petitioner has approached this Court. The stand taken in Exhibit P5 is correct. Workmen's Compensation Commission obviously is not entitled to modify its own order essentially in circumstances where the order has merged in the judgment of this Court. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.27628 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.27628 of 2008 4