IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 32614 of 2001(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.P PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KANIYATTU VEEDU, MARAMPILLY P.O ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.P PRADEEP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R4 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R4 SMT.PRIYA MAHESH FOR R4 SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN FOR R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P NO.32614 OF 2001 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: Judgment O.P No.20507/200-N dated 21-7-2000. Ext.P2: Order issued by the 2 nd respondent dated 6 th day of Sept. 2000. Ext.P3: Order of the 3 rd respondent dated 26-7-2001 No.R9.2522/01. Ext.P4: Representation to the 2 nd respondent dated 23-8-2001. /True Copy/ P.A TO JUDGE SPC C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------- O.P No.32614 OF 2001 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~ 1. The petitioner is an ex-employee of the 4th respondent company. His grievance is that the respondents 2 and 3 are not taking effective steps for realisation of the amounts ordered to be paid by the 4th respondent as gratuvity due to the petitioner. The petitioners application was allowed by the District Labour Officer directing the 4th respondent to pay an amount of Rs.83,293.65/- along with interest at the rate of 10% from 1.4.1999 onwards, till the date of payment. When the 4th respondent failed to make payment of the amounts, steps for realisation through revenue recovery proceedings was initiated as per Ext.P3 notice. The 3rd respondent had intimated the petitioner that since there is a stay order issued by the state government prohibiting recovery steps against the 4th respondent, it is not possible to realise the amounts. O.P.No.32614 Of 2001 2 2. When the matter came up for consideration it is submitted that the 4th respondent company had already been declared as a sick industry, and the BIFR had already recomended winding up of the company. It is submitted that the matter is now pending consideration before this court in a company petition. It is further informed that the 4th respondent had obtained a stay against implementation of the order of the BIFR, which stands confirmed in appeal by the AIFR. The scheme for revival of the company is in contemplation and it is submitted that the Government had already approached the Company Court for approval of such scheme. 3. In the above circumstances the remedy by way of revenue recovery steps for realisation of the amounts due to the petitioner, could not be pursued with. On the other hand he can approach the Company Court or any other appropriate authority as the case may be for realising the amounts due. In case of revival of the company, he can approach the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions in scheme relating to disbursal of benefits due to the employees. Under such O.P.No.32614 Of 2001 3 circumstances, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue remedies available to him as above, this writ petion is closed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. spc