IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1207 of 2008(Y) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.3568/2001 Dated 23/08/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------------- 1. SMT.SHINY SONY, W/O.LATE SONY JOSEPH, MATTATHIL HOUSE, KURIYANAD, KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 2. KATHI SONY (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SHINY SONY, MATTATHIL HOUSE, KURIYANAD, KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA. 3. ASHY SONY (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SHINY SONY, MATTATHIL HOUSE,KURIYANAD, KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KANNUR, KERALA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MONIPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC R1&3 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.1207 of 2008 in O.P. No.3568 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008. ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel appearing for the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund. There is inordinate delay in filing the review petition. However, in order to ensure that injustice is not done to the party, this court heard the review petitioners on merits before proceeding to consider whether delay should be condoned and review petition entertained. On hearing the review petitioners, I find that the petitioners' case on merits is that during the licence period others were allowed to carry on Abkari business. The petitioners are legal heirs of the licencee who is no more. Without the knowledge and consent of the licencee, nobody can carry on business in the abkari shops the right to sell in which were licensed to the licencee during the relevant year. Therefore, licencee cannot shift his burden on others. In other words, on merits I find no ground to interfere with the order in appeal. Therefore, Review Petition is devoid of any merits. However, it is conceded that even after two years of disposal of the W.P., respondents have not been able to recover the arrears which only shows how indifferent the respondents are in taking recovery steps. It 2 would be realistic on the part of the Government to permit the legal heirs of defaulter to repay the arrears atleast with reasonable interest or in other words, it is for the Government to consider waiver of penal interest in excess of compensatory rate of interest, say 12% or so, so that arrears are recovered for the benefit of employees. I leave it open to the petitioners to approach the Government for granting incentives for recovery, which I feel Government in it's discretion should consider, more so, when recovery authorities have failed to recover. In fact, in my view what the petitioners should do is to remit entire arrears but with 12% interest and request the Government to waive balance interest and in the event of such payment, I feel Government should consider the case favourably. If petitioners make payment as above within six weeks from now and file application for waiver of balance interest before the Government, then there will be direction to the respondents to withhold recovery of balance interest until Government passes orders. Review Petition is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms