IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 24825 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.K.G.MEMORIAL LABOUR CONTRACT SOCIETY LIMITED, (SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT) S.634/1997 PB 15,145/168,FORT ROAD, THALASSERY 670 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY A.K.PRAKASH. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRACTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,KINFRA HOUSE,31/2312, SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24825/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 1.12.2010. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.3.2011 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28.6.2011 IN WPC 12132/2011 EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 12.7.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24825 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a society, which has entered into an agreement with the respondent for providing security guards. 2. In this writ petition, they have two grievances. First one is that the amounts due to them under Ext.P1 agreement are not being paid. In so far as this grievance is concerned, with this very allegation, petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 12132/11. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing payment in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P1 agreement. Therefore, if at all there is non payment in violation of the directions of this Court, remedy of the petitioner was to have proceeded against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. However, standing counsel appearing for the respondent points out that they were always willing to pay the amounts due, but however only because the petitioner did not furnish the particulars of payment made under Clause 15 of the agreement that the amount remains unpaid. WPC No. 24825/11 :2 : 4. In the light of the directions in Ext.P3 judgment and in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, except to direct that in the event petitioner complies with the requirement of Clause 15, payment shall be made, no other orders are called for. 5. The other grievance on the basis of which the writ petition was filed is that Ext.P1 agreement was proposed to be prematurely terminated. When the writ petition came up for orders before this Court on 16.9.11, it was directed that the agreement shall not be cancelled. Accordingly, the petitioner continued to provide security guards. It is now pointed out that the period of the agreement is expiring tomorrow. Therefore, there arise no question of termination at this stage and on account of this, no orders in this aspect are also called for. Writ petition is therefore closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp