IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 17983 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.S.SIVADAS , S/O. V.K.SREEDHARAN AGED 55 YEARS, MADATHINKAL, S.L.PURAM P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER ALAPPUZHA. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. MUHAMMA COIR MATS & MATTINGS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO. 430 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUHAMMA P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRIR.AZAD BABU FOR R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the order dated 20.8.2007 issued by the Ist respondent in GC.No.1/2006. //true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.17983 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was the applicant in G.C.No.1/2006, claiming gratuity due under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By Ext.P1 order the Controlling Authority allowed his application and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.41,527/- with interest at the rate of 10% . Steps were taken for recovery and despite this, amount was not recovered. That lead the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that the Government had granted an instalment facility to the employer to make payment and that Rs.8,568/- has been recovered and the same has been deposited after deducting collection charges with the Controlling Authority. WP(c).No.17983/08 /2/ 3. The contention raised now is that the Government have no power to grant instalment facility for the amount covered by Ext.P1. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner is relying on the judgment of this court in Muraleedharan V. District Collector(1996(1) KLT 689). A reading of the aforesaid judgment shows that it fully supports the case of the petitioner. 4. In view of this it is directed that the balance amount due shall be recovered from the 3rd respondent by revenue recovery process, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Needless to say that it will be open to the petitioner to withdraw the amount in deposit. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.17983/08 /2/