IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 35245 of 2008(U) -------------------------- CP.67/2004 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAVITHRI M.K. W/O.V.GOPALAN, KUTTIKKAT HOUSE, MANIKA MANGALAM P.O. KALADY VIA. 2. GIREESH KUMAR.K.G.,S/O.V.GOPALAN, KITTIKKATT HOUSE, MANIKA MANGALAM P.O. KALAY VIA. 3. SAREESH KUMAR K.G. S/O. V.GOPALAN, KITTIKKATT HOUSE, MANIKA MANGALAM P.O. KALADY VIA. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE SRI.E.A.BIJUMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, LABOUR OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BARD, KALAMASSERY. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHY BHAVAN PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDHUTHY BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TRANSMISSION DIVISION MUVATTUPUZHA. 7. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB-STATION,(KSEB)SUB DIVISION, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R4 TO 7 BY GVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.35245 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioners were the claimants in C.P.No.67/04 on the file of the Labour Court, Ernakulam filed under Section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of the amount due to Late Sri. V. Gopalan, the employee of the respondents. By Ext.P1 order passed by the Labour Court, the claim petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,88,831/-. Although the said order has not been challenged so far, the amount was not paid. Petitioner thereupon moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P2, the request for initiating revenue recovery proceedings for recovering the dues. 2. The 2nd respondent did not take any action on Ext.P2. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed. WP(c).No.35245/08 /2/ In this writ petition respondents 3 to 7, who where the respondents before the Labour Court have no case that the order has not become final. If that be so, they ought to have paid the amount due under Ext.P1 as directed above. This has not been done and hence, the etitioner is entitled to move the 2nd respondent to get the amount realised by taking recourse of the revenue recovery proceedings. This is what they have done by filing Ext.P2 . On its receipt the 2nd respondent ought to have taken necessary action for recovery the amount that has not been due. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to take necessary action in Ext.P2 for recovering the amount due under Ext.P1. The 2nd respondent shall ensure that the amount is recovered without any further delay. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.35245/08 /2/