IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37903 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHNSON, AGED 50, S/O.VAREED, MANJALI HOUSE, KALLUR, THRISSUR, REP.BY HIS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, WIFE BEENA JOHNSON, AGED 40, W/O.JOHNSON, MANJALI HOUSE, KALLUR THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR-680 001. 3. FRANTO, S/O.FRANCIS, AKKARA HOUSE, KALLUR, KAVALLUR P.O., MUTTITHADY, THRISSUR-680 317. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.37903 OF 2010(K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The 3rd respondent, an employee of the petitioner, filed W.C.C.No.531/2003 before the 2nd respondent, on the basis that he suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. In the proceedings notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was represented by his counsel. Finally, Ext.P5 order was passed, holding that the 3rd respondent is entitled to be paid an amount of Rs.84,000/- with interest for the injury he sustained. It is challenging the said order that the writ petition is filed. 2. Two contentions are raised. One is that during the period when the proceedings were pending, the petitioner was suffering from schizophrenia and therefore he could not effectively defend the case. Second contention raised is that in view of the onerous condition requiring deposit of amount awarded for maintaining an appeal, petitioner is not in a position of pursue the appellate remedy. WPC.No. 37903/2010 :2 : 3. As far as the alleged inability of the petitioner in defending the case is concerned, a reading of Ext.P5 order shows that the petitioner was defended by a counsel and that the applicant and his witnesses were cross examined. Further no plea of any such inability was raised before the 2nd respondent. In such a situation I am not persuaded to consider the said plea in this writ petition. 4. As far as the availability of statutory remedy and the condition requires deposit of the amount awarded for availing of the statutory remedy of appeal is concerned, the validity of this provision is already upheld in numerous judgments and therefore the alleged inability of the petitioner cannot be accepted to maintain this writ petition, by-passing statutory remedy. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 37903/2010 :3 :