IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 748 of 2008(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32842/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------- M.I.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.M.C.ITTIYATHI, RESIDING AT MANGALAMUNDAKKAL HOUSE, PERINGASSERI P.O., IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, I.B.P.COMPANY LTD. ETTOOR CHACKO CHAMBERS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. 2. THE I.B.P.COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI. 3. ISSAC T.DEVASSIA, THEREKAPLACKAL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., THODUPUZHA. 4. ARUN BALA.M., MUTHANATTE HOUSE, PERINGASSERY, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- R.P. NO.748/2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32842 OF 2005-I ----------------------------------------- ORDER By the judgment under review, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. But, the review petitioner submits that the writ petition has not become infructuous. He has got substantial contentions in the writ petition. If those contentions are upheld, he is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, it is submitted. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. I feel that it is only appropriate that the writ petition be heard on merits. Accordingly, the judgment under review is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file. Post the writ petition before appropriate Bench as per the roster. 21st August, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/