IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 896 of 2008(F) --------------------------- CP.50/2005 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ A.K. SREEKUMAR, JAYAVIHAR, KOCHUPILAMMOODDU, KOLLAM-1, PROPRIETOR, REGENCY CASHEW COMPANY, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RENJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SHERASTHADAR. 2. SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, S/O. PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, CHAITHRAM, ARINELLOOR P.O THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM. 3. K.J. DHANAN, S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI, GOVIND, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM-15. 4. R. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. RAVINDRAN, RAVINDRA SADANAM, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM. 5. MOHANAKUTTAN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SREERANGAM, KALARI, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM. 6. NAJUMUDDIN MUSALIAR, SHAJI MANZIL, KARICODE P.O., KOLLAM. 7. M/S. WALTER CASHEW COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY MRS HEMA SREEKUMAR, JAYA VIHAR, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. W.P.(C) No. 1253/2008/Y -2- 8. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 896 of 2008 (F) ======================= Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the opposite party in C.P. No.50/05 before the Labour Court, Kollam. That CP was filed by some of the workers of the Regency Cashew Company of which the petitioner was the proprietor for service benefits for the period from 1.1.2002 to 30.11.2004. Notices were issued in this claim petition to the petitioner and petitioner received the same. He appeared before the Labour Court, through counsel, but did not file any objection. Since he was continuously absent, Labour court passed Ext.P6 order, after taking evidence of the petitioner, directing payment of benefits as claimed by the workmen. Ext. P6 order is under challenge before me. 2. Ext.P6 is dated 16.5.2006, more than one and half years ago. Petitioner woke up only when he received revenue recovery notice for recovery of amounts due under Ext.P6. The explanation for the delay put forward by the petitioner is that he W.P.(C) No. 896/2008/F -2- ceased to be the employer after another person purchased the factory in question and he had alerted this person who had undertaken to contest the matter on the petitioner's behalf. He trusted them and that is why he did not appear before the Labour Court is the contention raised. Petitioner has produced Exts. P1, P2 and P3. Those themselves would show that the transfer became final only on 16.12.04. That being so, at least in law the petitioner continued to be the employer of the workers in question till that date. In any event for a major portion of the period for which claim was raised in the claim petition, the petitioner was still the employer. In spite of the same, after having received notice from the Labour Court, he had not cared to contest the matter. In any event the petitioner was the only opposite party in the claim petition. Thereafter even assuming that the purchaser had undertaken to conduct the case on the petitioner's behalf, they could not have done so because the petitioner was the only opposite party to the claim petition and he alone could have given evidence in the case. Therefore, the explanation for the delay, now put forward, is not at all convincing. Therefore, the petitioner is clearly guilty of delay and W.P.(C) No. 896/2008/F -3- latches and I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp