IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 257 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28026/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------- N.KRISHNA HOLLA, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA HOLLA, SHIRIBAGILU P.O, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: --------------- XAVIER DEO, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 48 YEARS,DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICE, MOTOR TRANSPORT W.W.F, KASARAGOD TALUK. G.P. SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... C.O.C. No.257 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Judgment was rendered on 20th September, 2007 giving opportunity to the writ petitioner to pay 30% and file appeal against disputed demand of Welfare Fund dues. The writ petitioner has now filed contempt application on 19.2.2010 complaining that the respondent has violated directions contained in the judgment. Standing Counsel submitted that there is no violation on the part of the respondent because petitioner has not even filed appeal in terms of the direction contained in the judgment. Standing Counsel further submitted that in respect of the very same dues, petitioner had earlier filed another writ petition, W.P.(C) No.21268/2007 and obtained instalment facility from this court to clear the very same dues. However, it is seen from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.28026/2007 that petitioner had suppressed the filing of the earlier writ petition before this court. I do not find any bonafides in the contempt application. In fact, if facts stated by the Standing Counsel are correct, contempt proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner himself. I, therefore, dismiss the contempt case 2 directing the respondents to proceed for recovery of the entire arrears without any delay. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms