IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 620 of 2007(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29870/2005 Dated 13/07/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS1 AND 2 IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS,VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA MUNICIPAL THOZHILALI WELFARE FUND NO.163/85,KADUVETTU BUILDING,NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.ONNAPPAN,RESIDING AT TC 62/651,KARTHIKA NAGAR, NO.157,MANACAUD P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC,TVM CORPN. FOR R2 SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.S.L.SAJI FOR R1 SRI.R.ANILKUMAR(MANNANTHALA) FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------------------------------------------------- W.A. No.620 OF 2007-B --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J The first respondent filed the writ petition with the following prayers; “(i) call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P5 order issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the extent it prohibits the 3rd respondent Corporation from effecting salary deduction from its employees for the purpose of payment of monthly contribution and instalments of loan payable by such employees who are members of the Petitioner Welfare Fund. (ii) declare that in view of Exts.P3 judgment the 2nd respondent has no manner of right to interfere with the salary deduction being effectively made by the 3rd respondent Corporation from its employees for the purpose of payment of monthly contribution and instalments of loan payable by such employees who are members of the Petitioner Welfare Fund. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd Respondent Corporation to continue effecting salary deduction from its employees for the purpose of payment of monthly contribution and instalments of loan payable by such employees who are members of the Petitioner Welfare Fund. “ 2. By the judgment rendered on 13th July, 2006 the learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition. It is against the said judgment, WA.No.620/2007 :2 : this appeal has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. 3. The contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that Ext.P5 order which was challenged in the writ petition was issued mainly for preventing recovery from salary for the benefit of the Ist respondent, being a non-statutory organization. According to the Government Pleader several complaints were also received from the contingent employees of the Corporation objecting to the recovery from salary. 4. However, the pleadings in the writ petition show that on an earlier occasion Ext.P2 order was issued by the 2nd appellant containing directions similar to those now issued by Ext.P5. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the first respondent had filed O.S.No.809/90 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram in which State of Kerala was the defendant. The suit was decreed by Ext.P3 judgment and that judgment has become final and binding upon the appellants. Therefore, the appellant could not have issued any order violating the decree of the civil court. That apart, the learned Judge has also clarified that Ext.P5 shall be implemented only against the willing employees of the Corporation. WA.No.620/2007 :3 : In view of these reasons, we are satisfied that there is no illegality in the judgment warranting interference. Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. (J. CHELAMESWAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE