IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4456 of 2008(E) ------------------------- CP.49/2004 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ C.G.THANKACHAN CHARAKKAL CASHEW INDUSTRIES, UMMANNOOR P.O. KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.A.RAZZAK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. Y. KUNJUMON, PALLITHAZHATHIL CHERUVALLOOR, ANDOOR P.O., VALAKOM KOTTARAKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 4456 of 2008 (E) ======================= Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the Labour Court, Kollam in C.P. No.49/2004, Ext.P5 show cause notice issued by the DLO for recovery of amounts covered by Ext. P4 and Ext.P7 Revenue Recovery notice. The petitioner submits that the Labour Court itself entertained the claim petition beyond the period of limitation prescribed. He would further submit that Ext.P5 show cause notice has been issued beyond the period prescribed under Section 33 C(1). He, therefore, submits that the revenue recovery proceedings pursuant to those orders are unsustainable. 2. I am not inclined to consider this writ petition for more than one reason. Ext.P1 award based on which Ext.P4 order has been passed has been upheld by this Court in W.A. No.544/2006, which has become final also. Ext.P4 order was passed by the Labour Court as early as on 8.10.2006. The petitioner did not care to challenge the same within any W.P.(C) No. 4456/2008/E -2- reasonable period. No reasons are also stated for the extra-ordinary delay. Further, Ext.P4 order has passed computing the amounts due to the workman under Ext.P1 award which has become final. There is no limitation period prescribed for filing a C.P. under Section 33 C(2). Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge against Ext.P4. Although in Ext.P5 Section 33 C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is mentioned, the proceedings is in effect only for recovery of amounts covered by Ext.P4, which is an order passed under Section 33 C (2). In so far as I have upheld Ext.P4 order, the petitioner cannot validly challenge the Revenue Recovery proceedings for recovery of amounts covered by Ext.P4 order. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp