IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 806 of 2010(S) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19364/2008 Dated 30/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. K.P.SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.VELU EZHUTHACHAN, 66 YEARS, 'ANAMIKA', KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA, POST PAZHAYANNUR. 2. Y.KRISHNAN, S/O.JANARDHANAN, 63 YEARS, AMBADY HOUSE, MUDUVARA, POST PUZHAKKAL. 3. E.J.JOHNY, S/O.E.D.JACOB, 66 YEARS, EDAKKULATHOOR HOUSE, SANTHY NAGAR, POST NEDUMPARA. 4. K.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.K.K.KUNHAMAN, 66 YEARS, KARANCHIRA HOUSE, POST NEDUMPUZHA. 5. K.R.SREEMATHY, W/O.LATE SHRI.T.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGED 65 YEARS, THEKKOOT KALARIKKAL HOUSE, POST KANIMANGALAM. * ADDL. P6 IMPLEADED P6. JESSY, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. LATE SHRI.E.J. JOHNY EDAKKULATHUR HOUSE, SANTHY NAGAR, POST NEDUMPARA. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 6TH PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 12/08/2010 IN I.A.410/2010, AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE THIRD PETITION, WHO IS NO MORE. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI .......2/-.... ...2... RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT) CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. * ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED R2. SRI. B. MOHANAN, S/O. G. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, 53 YEARS, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. ** IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 12/08/2010 IN I.A. 420/2010 IN COC. 806/2010(S) R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------------- Contempt Case NO. 806 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT The counsel for the petitioner submits that the amounts due to the petitioners 1 and 2 have already been disbursed and since the 3rd petitioner is no more, the legal heirs have been directed to produce documents proving their right for disbursal of the amount. Therefore, Contempt Case is closed as agreed by the counsel for the petitioner, without prejudice to the right of the legal heirs of the 3rd petitioner to prove the matter before the respondents. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. mns