IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6665 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ TRICHUR WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER STORES LIMITED NO.R.239, TRICHUR-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR IN CHARGE. BY ADV. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.6665 of 2010-G ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved of the recovery proceedings being pursued by the respondent as evident from Ext.P3 in furtherance to the order of the Labour Court, Ernakulam in C.P.No.71 of 1993, as stated in sixth para of the Writ Petition. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam under Section 33(C) (2) of the ID Act, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing O.P.No.19047 of 2001 and pursuant to the satisfaction of the condition by remitting 50% of the amount awarded and the cost, the matter was remanded. Accordingly, the Labour Court re-considered the matter and passed fresh order dtd.31.7.2002, which was subjected to challenge by filing O.P.No.37567 of 2002. Even though the interim order of stay was passed by this Court in the said Original Petition, it was subsequently dismissed on 10.7.2006. Later, W.A.No.640 of 2007 challenging the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court as per the verdict W.P(C) No.6665 of 2010-G 2 dtd.22.9.2009. Thus the matter has became final. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plight of the petitioner Society is deplorably poor and by virtue of the frustrating circumstances, it is not even able to pay the salary to the existing employees. It is stated that there are only 25 employees and due to the liability of the petitioner, four more workers are sought to be discharged in a phased manner and the matter has already taken up before the Government, where it is pending. Because of the coercive steps being pursued, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent for immediate interference. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and also in view of the fact that the aggrieved parties namely the employees concerned, who are beneficiaries of the verdict passed by the Labour Court, are not before this Court, no positive relief to set aside Ext.P3 can be granted by this Court. More so, when the matter has become final by virtue of the verdict passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.640 of 2007 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. W.P(C) No.6665 of 2010-G 3 5. However, taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the second respondent can be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, so as to safe guard the interest of all concerned, in the best possible manner. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and communicate the outcome to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.6665 of 2010-G 4