IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 586 of 2003(T) --------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.C.JOY, THEKKENATTU HOUSE, KIDANGOOR SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. JOSE PHILIP, S/O. PHILIP, THEKKENATTU HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. SHRI P.M.MATHEW, S/O.KURUVILA MATHEW, POOVATHUNKAL HOUSE, THATTARATHARA P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER G.P. T.T.MUHAMOOD SRI.ALEX M. ARAYATH SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.ALEX M.AVIRAH THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.586/03. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SUBSISTANCE ALLOWANCE. P2. COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.11.2.00 BY R1. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.15388/02. P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.24.4.02 BY R1. P6. COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY R3 BEFORE R1 DTD.8.2.01. P7. COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.15.5.01 BY P2 TO R2. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.3.02 BY R1. P9. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.5.02 IN S.A.NO.B.645/99. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.586 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This original petition, at the instance of the employer in a subsistence allowance claim, is directed against Exts. P8 and P9 orders of the authority under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act directing payment of subsistence allowance to an employee of the petitioner for the period from 7.1.1998 to 8.2.2001. Originally the original petition was filed challenging Ext.P8 order by which the petitioner was directed to pay subsistence allowance to the third respondent with effect from 8.6.1999 to 8.2.2001. At that time, for an earlier period, pursuant Ext.P4 judgment of this court, fresh adjudication was pending. Subsequently Ext.P9 order was passed in those proceedings, which also has been challenged by the petitioner by amending the original petition. From Ext.P9 order, it is clear that even after remand by Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner herein did not care to contest the matter and remained absent forcing the authorities to pass orders in their absence. o.p.586/03 2 Although the petitioner would contend that they were not contractors of the toddy workers at the relevant time, in the absence of any evidence in support of their contentions, I am unable to countenance those contentions. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE o.p.586/03 3 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No.586 of 2003-T =============== J U D G M E N T 17th January, 2008