IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 828 of 2011() ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25960/2011 Dated 11/10/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LTD., PUNALUR-691 305. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. VASANTHA KUMARAN PILLAI, DEPUTY MANAGER (CO-ORDINATION) HEAD OFFICE, REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LTD., PUNALUR-691 305. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.THOMAS VECHUCHERUVIL, DEPUTY MANAGER, REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LTD., PUNALUR-691 305. R1 BY ADVS. SRI. ROY THOMAS SRI. JOHN JOSEPH (ROY) R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.828 of 2011 in WP(C).No.25960 of 2011-T. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th November, 2011. O R D E R The petitioner has filed this Review Petition seeking for a review of judgment dated 11.10.2011 in WP(C). No.25960/2011. As per the said judgment, the following direction has been issued: “This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Board of Directors of the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 2. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Pathrose Mathai, who appears for the review petitioner points out that Ext.P6 representation that is referred to in the judgment portion extracted above, has subsequently been substituted by the petitioner with another representation dated 17.10.2011. RP.No.828/2011 in WP(C).No.25960/2011-T. 2 The subsequent representation was submitted with a request to treat the earlier representation as withdrawn. In view of the fact that Ext.P6 representation that was directed to be considered and disposed of by this Court is no longer pending before the Board of Directors of the first respondent, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the judgment of this Court and the direction contained therein may be withdrawn. 3. I also notice that the petitioner has filed another WP(C).No.30887/2011 challenging the action of the first respondent in putting the third respondent in full charge of the post of Manager (Estate). The third respondent has filed a writ petition as WP(C).No.12805/2011 which is also pending. 4. In view of the above subsequent developments, it has become unnecessary to consider the representation of the petitioner that was produced as Ext.P6 in WP(C). No.25960/2011. RP.No.828/2011 in WP(C).No.25960/2011-T. 3 5. For the above reasons, this Review Petition is allowed. The judgment in WP(C).No.25960/2011 is recalled and set aside. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-