IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19298 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- ID.76/2007 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- TEXAN RUBBER PRODUCTS LABOUR UNION (INTUC),MOORKKANIKKARA, KOZHUKULLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN. BY ADVS. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,CIVIL STATION,AYYANTHOLE P.O.,THRISSUR - 680003. 2. T.G.RAVI.,PROPRIETOR, TEXAN RUBBER PRODUCTS, MOORKKANIKKARA, KOZHUKULLY P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680734. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19298 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered trade union or employees of the second respondent has filed this writ petition complaining that the amounts due as per award in I.D.No.76 of 2007 have not been paid. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.3,12,706/- was agreed to be paid in six instalments starting from 22.12.2008 and ending on 22.5.2009. The company has paid only an amount of Rs.45,000/- and that the balance amount is alleged to be remaining unpaid. Though the petitioner Union had requested for the initiation of prosecution proceedings, no action has been taken by the first respondent. In the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions for recovery of the amount. 2. Adv.M.B.Prajith who appears for the second respondent submits that amounts have been paid even after the filing of this writ petition and the balance amount has not been paid only because of financial difficulties. It is wpc No.19298/2010 2 submitted that the balance amount now payable by the second respondent is only Rs.2,02,706/-, the balance amount having already been paid. The counsel for the second respondent seeks permission to pay the balance amount in instalments starting from the Ist of September 2010. 3. The prayer for instalment made by the counsel for the second respondent is stoutly opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. According to him, though such a facility had been granted initially, the second respondent had not made any payments taking advantage of the facility. Therefore, he prays for a direction to initiate prosecution proceedings against the second respondent. 4. Having heard the counsel on either side, I feel that the second respondent can be given one more opportunity to pay the amounts due in instalments, provided the entire amount is paid off on or before 31.12.2010. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,02,706/- due to the petitioner in monthly instalments commencing from the Ist of September wpc No.19298/2010 3 2010, in such a way that the entire amount would be paid off on or before 31.12.2010. It is made clear that in the event of the second respondent committing default in payment of two consecutive instalments, coercive proceedings as stipulated by the Act can be initiated. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge css/