IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9077 of 2007(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.J.MATHEWS, VANNIYAMPARAMBIL, CARBORANDUM ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. *ADDL.R3 & R4 IMPLEADED: R3. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R4. SUNNY.K.M., S/O. K.V. MATHEW, KURUPPAN HOUSE, VENGORE VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. (*ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 26/07/2007 IN I.A.NO.10114/07) R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9077/2007 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 13/05/1998. P2: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD. 2/11/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 9077 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition is the former Managing Director of M/s. Chancellor Paper Mills Ltd., a Company registered under the Companies Act. The Company is now under liquidation pursuant to an order of winding up passed by this Court in C.P. No. 28/1995. It appears that the additional 4th respondent herein filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation for certain injuries sustained by him in the course of employment of the Company before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam, in which Ext. P1 award was passed directing payment of compensation of Rs.16,472/- with 12% interest thereon. In the application, the opposite party was the petitioner by name, as Managing Director of the Company. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kottayam, the 2nd respondent herein, initiated revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the said amount by issuing Ext. P2 notice. That is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner raises two contentions. The first is that the petitioner being only the Managing Director of the Company, has no personal liability to pay the compensation payable to an employee of the Company under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The second is that insofar as the Company has been ordered to be wound up by the Company Court and the assets of the Company are with the Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of Kerala, the remedy for executing Ext. P1 award is approaching the Official Liquidator with a claim for the said amount in the winding up proceedings or to file a claim before the Company Court . W.P(C) No. 9077 of 2007 -: 2 :- 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext. P1 award is in the personal name of the petitioner as the opposite party and the award is against the petitioner and not against the Company and therefore insofar as Ext. P1 award is not under challenge, the petitioner is liable to satisfy the award. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. From Ext. P1 award itself, it is abundantly clear that the additional 4th respondent was not an employee of the petitioner in his personal capacity, but he was an employee of M/s. Chancellor Paper Mills Ltd., although the petitioner's name appears as the opposite party. But, it is seen that he is impleaded in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Company. That being so, the petitioner does not have any personal liability in respect of the compensation to an employee of the Company under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Consequently, when the Company has been ordered to be wound up, for payment of amount as per Ext. P1 award, the respondents have to approach the Official Liquidator or the Company Court appropriately. Therefore, the impugned revenue recovery proceedings as per Ext. P2 against the petitioner in his personal capacity is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is quashed. However, this will not stand in the way of either the 2nd respondent or the additional 4th respondent approaching the Official Liquidator representing the Company in Liquidation or the Company Court for appropriate reliefs for execution of Ext. P1 award. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/