IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 21997 of 2003(R) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.K.RAJAN, STATE PRESIDENT, MADYA VIDESAMADYA VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI FEDERATION, I.N.T.U.C. OFFICE, PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV. MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. LABOUR SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. R2 BY ADVS. MR.K.K.BABU SC KABWWFB, MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21997/2003 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DTD. 20/06/2003. P2: COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATORY LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.12576/G1/2003/TD DTD. 12/06/2003. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISUSED BYTHE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION DTD. 19/06/2003. P5: COPY OF THE LIST PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.8952/03 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD. 18/03/2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21997 OF 2003 (R) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance is mainly that the complaints made by the petitioner against the manner of functioning of the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board were pending before the 2nd respondent without any action thereon. 2. In view of the long lapse of time, I do not think any positive direction in the writ petition is called for. 3. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, it will be open to the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent, in which event, I have no reason to think that the 2nd respondent will not take appropriate action in the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp