IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30549 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SHAJI MATHEW, ASSARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM POST, ERNAKULAM-686 664. BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686 616, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. GENERAL MANAGER (WORKS), HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 616. 3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FDP), HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686 616. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1,2,3 SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30549 OF 2010 (P) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an enlisted contractor of the respondents. 2. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner had executed works as per the work orders dated 29/9/06 and 11/10/07. The case of the petitioner is that although he has executed the work to the satisfaction of the company, the security deposits are still not released by the company on the ground that WCC Nos.17/09 and 18/09 filed by the workers of the petitioner and their dependants are pending before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, mere pendency of the aforesaid workmen compensation cases is no reason for withholding the security deposits. 3. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Company. 4. Although the respondents do not dispute the claim of the petitioner that he has executed the work, learned counsel points out the pendency of the aforesaid workmen compensation WPC No. 30549/10 :2 : claims. It is stated that one of the claims arose out of the death of a workmen engaged by the company and the other arose out of the loss of right eye of a workman engaged by the petitioner. 5. Even going by the submissions made by the counsel, as at present, the company is a party only in one of the claims. It is in order to discharge the liability that may be fastened on the company in the event an adverse award is passed by the Commissioner, that the Company has withheld the security deposits that are due to the petitioner. 6. From the submissions thus made by both parties, it is therefore evident that, though the petitioner has completed the works awarded to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid work orders, the security deposit is retained by the company only on account of the pendency of the workmen compensation cases. Although this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot find fault with the company in having chosen to retain the security deposit in order to discharge the liability that may be fastened on the company in case the adverse awards are passed by the Commissioner, still fact remains that, the company is a party only in one of the two cases. WPC No. 30549/10 :3 : 7. If that be so, company at the best can retain the amount from out of the security deposit only to the extent of the claim in the proceedings to which it is a party. Therefore, withholding of security deposit on account of the pendency of the company claim to which the company is not a party cannot be upheld. In that view of the matter, directing that it will be open to the company to retain the amount equivalent to the claim amount in the workmen compensation claim to which it is party and directing that excess amount, if any available, shall be disbursed to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp