IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1741 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.17680/2009 Dated 06/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SRI.JAYAPRAKASH, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.DEEPAK EXPORT ENTERPRISES, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. SRI.K.N.BABUJI, KIZHAKKEVILAYIL VEEDU, PATTOMTHURUTHU, KOLLAM. 2. THE PROPRIETOR, A.S.CASHEW FACTORY, KIZHAKKETHERUVU, CHENGAMANADU P.O. 3. RAJ KUMAR IMPEX PVT.LTD., KUZHIMATHICADU P.O., KAREEPRA, KOLLAM. 4. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1741 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. The appeal is filed against the interim order whereunder the learned Single Judge directed payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as a condition for stay. The appellant's counsel clarified that the purpose of the Writ Appeal is to ensure that the amount deposited is not released to the respondents. The prayer is opposed by the respondents' counsel stating that in view of the award, full amount is to be deposited by the appellants. 2. The first respondent has filed I.A.No.722 of 2011 for a direction to the appellant to deposit the entire amount. The said application is not maintainable because when the Single Judge granted conditional stay, if the first respondent has the grievance, he has to file appeal, which is not done. Moreover, we do not find any merit in the claim made by the respondents for full payment. The reliefs sought for by the appellant also cannot be granted WA.1741/09 2 because unless the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount, the deposit made by the appellant as per the interim order will serve no purpose. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal and the I.A filed by the first respondent are dismissed. Both sides can get ready to argue the Writ Petition itself before the learned Single Judge and the learned Judge will hear and dispose of the Writ Petition at the earliest. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs