IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1702 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1703/2009 Dated 20/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SMT.A.USHA, POURNAMI, 3RD MILE, WEST PONNIAM P.O., THALASSSERY (FORMERLY SENIOR ASST. IN OUSHADI, THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION (IM) KERALA LTD. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION(IM) KERALA LTD., REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, OUSHADI, P.O.KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION (IM) KERALA LTD., OUSHADI, P.O.KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE MARKETING MANAGER, THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION(IM) KERALA LTD. OUSHADI, P.O.KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.A. No. 1702 OF 2009 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner approached this court challenging Exts.P5 and P7. As per Ext.P5, the first respondent directed the appellant to pay Rs.20,000/- which is the cost of a CD, allegedly lost from the possession of the appellant. She also challenges Ext.P7 as per which a representation against Ext.P5 was rejected. She also prays for a declaration that Ext.P4 undertaking given by her was under coercion and, therefore, the same will not bind her. 2. The appellant was an ex-employee of the 1st respondent. Presently, she is working in government service. At the time of relieving from the 2nd respondent on getting appointment in government, she gave Ext.P4 undertaking, obtained relieving order and joined government service. On the strength of Ext.P4, now, she has been called upon to pay Rs.20,000/-. According to her, she was never in possession of the CD concerned. She has nothing to do with it. Even as per the standing instructions, she is not the person responsible for the custody of CD. Therefore, the demand is unjustified. The respondents submitted that the CD was in the possession of the WA.1702/09 : 2 : appellant and she alone was responsible for the loss suffered by the 2nd respondent. Learned single Judge found that the above dispute cannot be resolved without taking evidence. Whether Ext.P4 is enforceable or not is also a matter under dispute between the parties. Therefore, the proper remedy open to the appellant to redress her grievance is to move the civil court. Based on this finding the writ petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the learned single Judge, this writ appeal is filed. Going through the materials on record, we fully concur with the view taken by the learned single Judge. The dispute raised in this case can be resolved by a civil court and the same cannot be resolved in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of both sides. Sd/- (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge