IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 291 of 2009(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAVELIKKARA K.S.R.T.C. EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.A-721, REGIONAL WORK SHOP, MAVELIKKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., MAVELIKKARA. 3. P.M. APPUKUTTAN, PETERS ENCLAVE, C RAJAGIRI, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. K. CHAKRAPANI, JISHU BHAVAN, ADITYANELLUR, THAZUTHALA, KOLLAM. 5. M. SASIDHARAN, KOTTARAMTHOPPIL, KANNIYOOR, MAVELIKKARA. 6. P. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, THEVAM VEETTIL, KANNAMANGALAM, PELA, MAVELIKKARA. 7. T.OUSEPH, MAYFLOWER, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, THANNERMUKKAM, CHERTHALA. 8. SOOSAN CHACKO, MURINGASSERY, NJATTARKAVU, MAVELIKKARA. 9. HANEEFA SAINUDEEN, ARAMAM, PUNNATHAL, KOLLAM. 10. K. BABY PRATHAP, PANAMOOTTIL, KALLELI BHAGAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 11. NATARAJAN ACHARY, WEST POOVATHUR, THAZHASSERY, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. N. SASIDHARAN NAIR, KANIYARAHAKATHU VEEDU, MALI BHAGAM, THEKKUMBHAGAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 13. K.G. NEELAKANTAPILLAI, VAKKADATHU VEETTIL, MURUKKALA, KAYAMKULAM, KARTHIKAPALLY. 14. A. RAJAN, MURUTHAL VALLIKEEZHIL HOUSE, THRIKKANNUR, KOLLAM. BY SC SRI K PRABHAKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 291 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT Notice to respondents 3 to 14 dispensed with, preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. Sri K.C.Prabhakaran appears for first and second respondents. Respondents 3 to 14 are the employees of first respondent, and debtors of the petitioner. Petitioner holds Section 37 agreements as against respondents 3 to 14. If there are subsisting agreements under Section 37 of the KCS Act, respondents 1 and 2 will strictly enforce them to the extent of the coverage under the agreements. Let the needful be done immediately. This judgment will not preclude the petitioner from initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the debtors. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/16/2