IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27642 of 2010(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.H.HABEEB MOHAMMED, S/O.K.B.HYDROSE, KARUKAPPADATH HOUSE, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.M.HASHIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER VETTUKATTIL BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.27642 of 2010-E ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the first respondent in a Workmen Compensation Case (WCC No.179 of 2000) awarded by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Thrissur. The claim petition was filed by legal heirs of a worker, who died in an accident occurred in a quarry owned by the petitioner. The first respondent herein is the insurance company, which was impleaded as respondent in the workmen compensation case. As per order in the WCC, the first respondent herein was directed to pay compensation to the applicants, to the tune of Rs.1,94,640/- along with interest @ 12%. The first respondent preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner, before this Court as MFA No.91 of 2005. This Court allowed the MFA and exonerated the first respondent from the liability. The petitioner was directed to make deposit of the amount within two months, observing that the vehicle which caused the accident was fitted with an Air Compressor, which was not covered under the policy of insurance. According to the petitioner, he was W.P(C) No.27642 of 2010-E 2 not having knowledge about the appeal and the notice issued from this Court was not served on him due to the change of address. However, it is conceded that a review petition was already filed against the judgment in the MFA, as R.P.No.577 of 2010. The review petition was filed along with a petition to condone delay and it is stated that this Court had already ordered notice to the respondents. 2. Grievance voiced in this writ petition is against the revenue recovery steps now being pursued for realisation of amounts covered under the order in the workmen compensation case, which got merged with the judgment in MFA No.91 of 2005. The petitioner is seeking stay of coercive steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 notice till such time the review petition is considered by this Court. 3. The amount sought to be recovered under the revenue recovery proceedings is amount due under the award of the workmen compensation Commissioner, which got merged in the appellate judgment. The petitioner could not in any way agitate merits of the award, or the appellate judgment in this writ petition. W.P(C) No.27642 of 2010-E 3 If the petitioner has got any valid reason for getting the judgment in the M.FA reviewed by this Court, it is for him to pursue such remedies. It is also open to the petitioner to approach the appellate Court seeking appropriate interim relief, if coercive steps of recovery is being pursued pending disposal of the review petition. At any rate it is not proper for this Court to interfere in any manner with the execution proceedings, being pursued to realise the amounts ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of a deceased workman, which judgment was passed by a Division Bench of this Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction. I am of the opinion that the attempt in filing this writ petition will amount to abuse of the process of this Court. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy from the appellate Court. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab