IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10688 of 2004(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MACHERI ABDUL RAZAK, S/O. MUHAMMED, MACHERI HOUSE, TIRURANGADI VILLAGE, P.O. TIRURANGADI. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI. 2. DEPUTY THAHSILDAR, (ARREAR COLLECTION) TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI. 3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.10688/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/10/1999 IN M.F.A.NO.540/1990. P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO.K.DIS.D2.48842/2003 DTD. 27/11/03 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO.K.DIS.D2-48842/2003 IN FILE NO.PRI- 19/03/04/MISC ISSUED BY TH 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO.PRI-19/03/04/MISC DATED 6/2/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1T RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO.PRI-19/03/04/MISL DATED 6/2/2004 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGER sts P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 10688 OF 2004 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein was the claimant in W.C.C. No. 129 of 1988 before the 3rd respondent and was awarded compensation in respect of the injuries, reckoning the disability as 100 %. Being aggrieved of the said order, the insurer of the employer, who deposited amount on behalf of the employer, preferred an appeal as MFA 540 of 1990 before this Court. In the course of final hearing, it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court that the medical evidence revealed only 8% permanent disability and hence the challenge raised by the insurer/appellant in the appeal had to be sustained in the light of the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sreedharan (1995 (1) KLT 275). It was also observed by the Division Bench that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in C.MP 3102 of 1990, the claimant was permitted to withdraw a sum of ` 25,000/- from the amount deposited by the appellant/insurance company and the said amount was much more than what the claimant would be entitled to, if the compensation was assessed at 8% permanent disability. It was specifically observed by the Bench that, since the above amount had already been released W.P. (C) No. 10688 of 2004 : 2 : to the claimant, the Court did not wish to pass any order directing the claimant to repay any amount to the appellant/insurer, thus making it clear that, the appellant/insurer would be entitled to withdraw the balance amount deposited with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at the time of filing appeal. 2. In spite of specific observation made by the Division Bench of this Court as per Ext. P1 judgment in MFA 540 of 1990, it appears that, a requisition was made before the Revenue authorities, pursuant to which Exts. P3 to P5 notices have been issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to realize a sum of ` 1,00,246/- with interest and collection charges, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above writ petition wherein interim order of stay was granted. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent that the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated pursuant to the requisition made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode, i.e. 3rd respondent, stating that, there was an excess payment to the said extent. But, the 3rd respondent has not filed any counter affidavit and it is not discernible from the proceedings, whether the 3rd respondent had released the entire amount deposited by the insurance company to the petitioner or whether only sum of `.25,000/- was released pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in CMP. No. 3102 of 1990. W.P. (C) No. 10688 of 2004 : 3 : 3. Going by the specific pleadings raised by the petitioner, particularly in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that, this Court while passing Ext. P1 judgment in MFA did not direct the petitioner to repay a sum of ` 25,000/- received by him (by virtue of the interim order in CMP 3102 of 2009) and the materials on records, it is revealed that the the recovery proceedings are bad in law. 4. In the above circumstances, Exts. P2 to P5 notices issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are set aside. However, it is made clear that, if any amount over and above the said amount of ` 25,000/- has been released to the petitioner pursuant to the deposit effected by the insurance company before the 3rd respondent, the said extent of excess payment, which came to the hands of the petitioner could be recovered after issuing necessary clarification from the requisitioning authority; by issuing a fresh notice pointing out the actual facts and figures. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above declaration. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd