IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 1092 of 2010() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22981/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 IN W.P. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, AZHEEKAL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, AZHEEKAL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518. 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518. 4. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 001. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 001. 6. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R3 TO R7 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHADEVI RP. NO.1092/2010 RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN W.P(C) ------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKER'S UNION (AFFILIATED TO TUCI), REG.NO.Q.12-11/91, AFL NO.KER/013, KAYAMKULAM FISHING HARBOUR UNIT, AZHEEKAL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DIST., REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, P.D.SUDHEER, R/AT PUTHEZHATH HOUSE, AYYEERMTHENGU, ALUMPEEDIKA.P.O., PIN-690 547. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1092 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.22981 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd January, 2011 ORDER This review petition is filed by the State contending that the observation in the judgment dated 12.8.2010 in W.P.(C) No.22981/2010, to the effect that the Government Pleader had made a submission that the members of the petitioner would also be allotted work as and when the Kayamkulam Fishing Harbour becomes fully operational, is not an undertaking available in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the review petitioners. Therefore, it is contended that the judgment of this Court suffers from an error necessitating a review thereof. The review petition is opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel points out that the observation was made recording the submission that was actually made at the Bar by the Senior Government Pleader. Therefore, it is contended that there is no error in the judgment warranting a review thereof. 2. I have heard both parties. I have also anxiously considered the rival contentions. 3. In Paragraph-2 of the judgment I have recorded the R.P.No.1092/2010 2 submission made by the Senior Government Pleader to the effect that the Kayamkulam Fishing Harbour was not fully operational and that as and when the harbour becomes operational, the members of the petitioner would also be allotted work. It was further submitted that the second respondent would consider Ext.P2 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon without delay. 4. Though the above submissions were made by the Senior Government Pleader, the judgment has not placed any reliance on the said submissions or issued any direction on the basis of the said submissions of the Senior Government Pleader. As per the judgment that is sought to be reviewed, the only direction that has been issued is to the second respondent in the writ petition to consider Ext.P2 representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. Since no direction has been issued on the basis of the other submission made by the Senior Government Pleader, the judgment cannot be said to suffer from any error. For the above reasons, the review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/