IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 2613 of 1998(J) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.MURALEEDHARAN, SHYAM VIHAR, PEZHUMTHURUTHY, PERUMON, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.C.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 2. S.MAHILAMANI, MANNELPUTHUVAL, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 3. P.PRAVEEN, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN S.MAHILAMANI, -DO-. 4. K.P.INDRAPALAN, KACHIYILPUTHENVEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, MAVELIKKARA. 5. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, ATTADATHU VEEDU KUREEPUZHA, THIRKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM. 6. NARAYANI ESWARI, PARANKIMAM VILAPUTHEN VEEDU, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA. 7. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY FOR LAW & COMPANY AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No.2613/1998 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.4606/1998 IN O.P.NO.2613/1998 DISMISSED. Sd/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. 25.6.2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.26.7.1997 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- O.P.No.2613 OF 1998 ----------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. Against Ext.P1, the award of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, the petitioner has got a right of appeal. But, he points out that to invoke that appellate remedy he has to deposit the entire award amount and the same is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, the petitioner challenges the provision concerning pre-deposit to invoke the appellate remedy as unconstitutional. In several statutes similar provisions are there. The above provision in the Workmens Compensation Act has also been subject of challenge in several writ petitions before this Court and those challenges were repelled also. We find no reason to reconsider the said view taken consistentantly by this Court. Accordingly, the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provision is repelled. Since the petitioner has an appellate remedy, the writ petition challenging the award is also W.P.(C) No.2613/1998 2 not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. But this will not affect the rights, if any, of the petitioner to invoke the appellate remedy. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps W.P.(C) No.2613/1998 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. =================== OP NO.2613 OF 1998 =================== JUDGMENT DATED 25TH JUNE 2008 ===================