IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31423 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE THRISSUR FOOD CORPORATION LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.R-730, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA GODOWN, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR. 2. ULAHANNAN, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE,PO KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY, THRISSUR. 3. ANNAMMA, W/O.ULAHANNAN, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE, PO KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY, THRISSUR. 4. CICY K JOHN, W/O.ELIAS, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE, PO KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY, THRISSUR. 5. MINOR ANGEL K ELIAS, S/O.ELIAS, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE, PO KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY, THRISSUR. 6. MINOR ELSON K ELIAS, S/O. ELIAS, KAKKANATTHADATHIL HOUSE, PO KATTILAPOOVAM, KOLATHUSSERY, THRISSUR. 7. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR. ADV. M/S.VARGHESE & JACOB FOR R1 SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 31423 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner Society is before this Court challenging the coercive proceedings being pursued against them invoking the provisions under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realisation of the amount due under Ext.P1 order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmens’ compensation, Thrissur in WCC 178/1996. The amount is payable to the respondents 2 to 6 who are stated as the legal heirs of the deceased Elias who was an employee of the petitioner who sustained fatal injuries leading to his death, in an accident in connection with the works awarded to the petitioner by the first respondent, which led to the claim preferred before the WC Commissioner. 2. Obviously, the petitioner as well as the first respondent were arrayed as the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively, in the claim petition filed by the legal heirs/claimants. After taking note of the rival submissions and the evidence adduced, it was held by the Commissioner, under issue No. 5 of Ext.P1 order, that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the second opposite party, i.e., the first respondent in the Writ Petition was liable to reimburse the amount of compensation to the other WP(C) No.31423/2009 2 opposite party, i.e., the petitioner herein. It was accordingly that the liability to an extent of Rs.2,03,850/- was ordered to be paid by the immediate employer, i.e., the first opposite party (petitioner herein) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 22.05.1996. 3. It is revealed from the contentions raised by the petitioner that the above finding rendered by the Commissioner was subjected to challenge from the part of the first respondent herein (second opposite party before the Commissioner) by filing MFA 1462/2001. However, interference was declined and the appeal itself was dismissed by this Court whereby the matter has become final. The case of the petitioner is that, since the amount has to be ultimately reimbursed by the first respondent (on discharging the liability by the petitioner to the legal heirs of the deceased) appropriate directions might be issued to the first respondent itself to satisfy the liability; especially since the financial position of the petitioner Society is stated as in doldrums. 4. The first respondent, principal employer has filed a counter affidavit also producing a copy of the supplementary agreement executed between the said respondent and the petitioner as Ext.R1, conceding that they are liable to reimburse the amount to the petitioner Society by virtue of the finalization of MFA 1462/2001, however adding that their liability arises only after the amount is satisfied by the petitioner Society, i.e., the immediate employer. 5. Technically, the contention raised by the first respondent appears WP(C) No.31423/2009 3 to be correct; but on a close scrutiny, there is no room for raising any such contention in view of the statutory requirements to be satisfied by the aggrieved party while challenging any order passed by the WC Commissioner. To ascertain the actual position, this Court called for the ‘Judges’ papers’ including the verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 18th December, 2007 in MFA 1462/2001 dismissing the appeal preferred by the first respondent against Ext.P1. 6. On going through the proceedings as above, it is seen that the amount due under Ext.P1 order passed by the Commissioner was never deposited by the appellant in MFA 1462/2001, which was a pre- requisite to entertain the appeal filed under Section 30 of the WC Act. It also remains a fact that ‘defect’ was noted by the Registry in this regard and finally the matter was ordered to be posted before the Bench. It was accordingly, that the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench on 18th December, 2007 and after hearing the merits, the appeal itself was dismissed by this Court. 7. Now coming to the sustainability of the contention raised by the first respondent (principal employer) that they are liable to effect the reimbursement only after satisfying the liability by the petitioner (immediate employer), it is to be noted that, this situation to raise such contention would not have arisen for the first respondent, who was the appellant in MFA 1462/2001, had they deposited the entire amount due under Ext.P1 as WP(C) No.31423/2009 4 contemplated under the statute, before the appeal preferred by them was entertained by this Court. In other words, the liability of the first respondent to have deposited the entire amount for having entertained their appeal challenging Ext.P1 order stands settled. This being the position, there is no point in driving the petitioner, to satisfy the amount covered by Ext.P1 and to run after the first respondent, seeking for disbursement. The contention raised to the contrary by the first respondent is totally wrong and misconceived, in view of the factual situation and the legal position. 8. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to issue any notice to the respondents 2 to 6 who are the claimants and legal heirs of the deceased employee (the beneficiary of Ext.P1 Order). The first respondent is hereby directed to satisfy the entire amount due under Ext.P1, directly to the said claimants, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, it will be open for the 7th respondent to proceed with appropriate proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the due amount from the first respondent. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc