IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35016 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.C.K.THAVOO AND COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY PARTNER, C.T.MATHEW, TYRE SHOP, PATTAMBI ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. C.C.JOHNSON, S/O.CHERUKUTTY, CHOWALLOR HOUSE, PELAKKATTU PAYYOOR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR FOR R4 SRI.MANU GOVIND FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 35016/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD IN I.D. NO.56/2003 DATED 4.12.2004. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO. 25502/2005 DATED 22/7/2008. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR DATED 17.2.2007. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR DATED 14.2.2008. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED, NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS NO.D3.17587/2008/LABOUR FOR ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS NO.D3.17587/2008/LABOUR FOR ATTACHMENT OF MOVABLES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2008 IN I.A. NO.903/2008 IN W.A. NO.1651/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RRESPONDENT DATED 6.11.2008 UPON RECEIPT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.88,200/- FROM THE PETITIONER. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 35016 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The fourth respondent was an employee of the petitioner. A dispute was raised by the fourth respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act culminating in Ext.P1 award, by which it was found that the denial of employment was not justifiable and ordered reinstatement in service with 50% backwages. The writ petition filed as also the writ appeal filed were unsuccessful. The fourth respondent appears to have approached the third respondent under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act vide Ext.P3 application. Ext.P4 is relied on by the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that when the writ appeal was pending, petitioner had filed I.A. No.903 of 2008 and the Division Bench passed Ext.P8 order of stay. The writ appeal was dismissed . According to the petitioner, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.88,200/- to the fourth respondent with the intention of settling the matter out of court. Ext.P9 is produced as the receipt. The challenge is against recovery proceedings. The substantial ground taken is that until the amount due as per Ext.P1 award is quantified, respondents 1 to 3 have no jurisdiction to proceed for recovering the amount, and under Section 33C(2) of of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court alone WPC.35016/2008. 2 has jurisdiction to decide the question regarding computation of amounts due under an award. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I feel that the aforesaid position canvassed is the correct position in law. In such circumstances, the writ petition is only to be allowed and Exts.P5 and P6 are quashed. However, I make it clear that this will be without prejudice to the right of the fourth respondent to seek quantification of the amount payable under the law in the appropriate forum and to work out his remedies in accordance with law. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb