IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17570 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AVADACHY, CR NO. 632, NO. I DIVISON, PASUMALLY ESTATE, THENGAKKAL P.O., VANDIPERIYAR. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SEVCRETARY TO GOVT. LABOUR DEPT. GOVETRNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, AND DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, IDUKKI THODUPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. 4. PASUMALA ESTATE, THENGAKKAL P.O., VANDIPERIYAR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 5. M/S POABS ENTERP5ISES PVT. LTD., KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 6. M/S RAMA BAHADUR THAKUR LTD., SIDHARTHA BUILDING, WILLINGTON ISLAND, MARAR ROAD, COCHIN-3. ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY FOR R5 SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 23797 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 17570/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.4.03 OF R2. P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 36161/08 OF THIS COURT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R5A. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.5.2008 OF E.P.F. B. COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26.6.09. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos. 17570 & 23797 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T W.P.(C).No.17570/2009 is filed by a retired employee of the 6th respondent-company, who was the original owner of the Pasumallay Estate. In that writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent-District Collector to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act against respondents 4, 5 and 6 for recovery of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 order passed under the Payment of Gratuity Act. W.P.(C). No.23797/2009 is filed by a union of employees of the tea estates belonging to M/s.RBT Ltd., seeking the following relief: “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to convene a meeting of respondents 2 to 7 as well as the representatives of the workmen including the petitioner herein to resolve the issues relating to the nonpayment of wage arrears to the workmen employed in the estates of Peerumedu purchased by the 7th respondent.” 2. M/s.RBT Ltd., the original owner of several estates committed default in payment of dues under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act to the tune of crores of rupees. The Provident Fund Organization initiated proceedings for recovery of the amounts in exercise of the powers under that Act. They sold various estates belonging to that company. The 5th respondent in W.P. (C).No.17570/2009, who is the 7th respondent in the other writ petition, purchased some of the estates in auction conducted by the 2 Provident Fund Organization. Now the question posed in these writ petitions is as to whether the purchaser said company is liable to pay workers' dues in respect of the employees of those estates. I am spared of the task of considering that question on merits, since the said company agrees before me that the company is prepared to settle the dues of workers who were working in those parts of the estates purchased by them, if the Government effects mutation of the properties purchased by them in their name. Therefore, I directed the Government to file a counter affidavit as to why mutation is not being effected in respect of the property in question. Apparently the Government is reluctant to do the same because the erstwhile owner, M/s.RBT Ltd., is indebted to the Government also for statutory dues. But they do not have a case that they have any overriding charge on the properties in question. At the same time, in the counter affidavit filed by them in W.P.(C).No.23797/2009 it is specifically admitted that the demand for mutation of the property raised by the 7th respondent company is genuine. In view of this submission, I am of opinion that the matter can be resolved by directing the concerned Revenue officers to effect mutation of the properties purchased by the 5th respondent in W.P.(C).No. 17570/2009 and to direct that company to pay to the workers employed and were employed in the estate in question their dues within a specified time. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: 3 Respondents 1, 2 and 4 in W.P.(C).No.23797/2009 shall see that mutation of the properties of M/s.RBT Ltd., purchased by the 7th respondent from the Provident Fund Organization is effected within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On mutation being so effected, within one month thereafter, the said company shall disburse the workers' dues in respect of workers employed or were employed in the estate purchased by them, pursuant to the sale by the Provident Fund Organization, in accordance with Ext.R3(I) settlement. This judgment will not stand in the way of the Government proceeding against the other properties of M/s.RBT Ltd., if available, for recovery of the amounts due to them from M/s.RBT Ltd. It is also agreed that, on humanitarian consideration, the 5th respondent company in W.P.(C).No.17570/2009 will pay the gratuity amount due to the petitioner in that writ petition, which agreement is recorded with a direction to pay the same within the time fixed as above. I make it celar that such payment will not create a precedent against the company for similar payment to other workers if the company is not liable to pay such amounts and the direction is purely as a matter of humanitarian consideration on the voluntary agreement by the company. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 4