IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 22182 of 2010(W) -------------------------- ID.45/2005 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GIRIJA R., CHEMPAKAMANDIRAM, THOZHUVANCODU LANDE, TRA, 101, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. NOW RESIDING AT PUNNATHANAN, VELLAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. SHREEHARSHAN D., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN, MADHAVI MANDIRAM, KOTTUKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. WILLS RAJ.S., VALIYAVILAVEEDU, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SANALKUMAR K.K., MITHANATHUPUTHEN VEEDU, T.C.4/1480, KAVIDIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR.A., KANIYAMVILAKATHUVEEDU, PACHALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 021. 6. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR.K.K., CHEMPAKA MANDIRAM, THOZHUVANKODE LANE, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 013. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.VIJAYA MOHANAN, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CONTINENTAL PUBLISHERS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 121 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, ARALAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 123 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M.MANOJ-R2 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO. 22182/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1: A true photocopy of the award dated 18.7.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. P2: A true photocopy of the order dated 19.6.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in C.P.No.58/2007. P3: A true photocopy of the show cause notice dtd.19.12.2008 issued by the District Labour Officer, Thiruvananthapuram to the first respondent. P4: A true photocopy of the representation submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. P5: A true photocopy of the communication issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent. P6: A true photocopy of the communication issued by the 3rd respondent to 4th respondent. P7: A true photocopy of the representation submitted by one of the petitioners before the 4th respondent. P8: The true photocopy of the certificate of encumbrance issued by the Sub Registry Office, Balaramapuram. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: nil C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.22182 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners were the workers under the first respondent company viz., Continental Publishers. They were dismissed from its service. A dispute was raised as I.D.No.45/2005 and that ultimately culminated in Ext.P1 award. As per the same, the petitioners were directed to be reinstated in service with continuity in service and also with back wages and all further wage oriented benefits. Even thereafter, the first respondent did not reinstate them in service. They were also not given the back wages and other wage oriented benefits. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file Claim Petition No. 58/2007 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Ext.P2 is the order passed in the said claim petition. As per the said order, the amount due to the petitioners were estimated and the first respondent herein was directed to pay the amount quantified thereunder to the respective petitioners within two months from the said date. It was also held thereunder that in case of failure on the part of the first respondent to effect payment as directed thereunder, they W.P.(C) NO.22182/2010 2 would be entitled to realise the amount from the first respondent herein with interest at the rate of 9% per month from 27.12.2007 till realization. Even thereafter, the first respondent had not either reinstated them in service or paid the amounts directed to be paid as per Ext.P2. At the instance of the petitioners, the District Labour Officer issued Ext.P3 show cause notice dated 19.12.2008 to the first respondent. As per Ext.P3, he was required to show cause why revenue recovery steps should not be taken to realise the amount mentioned thereunder as arrears of land revenue by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings. Exts.P5 and P6 would reveal that pursuant to the revenue recovery certificates issued by the fifth respondent herein, appropriate steps were taken by respondents 2 and 3 for the purpose of realising the amount directed to be paid to the petitioners as per Ext.P2. In fact, as per Ext.P5, the second respondent requested the third respondent to prepare a record relating to the properties belonging to the first respondent for the purpose of completing the proceedings for effecting recovery based on revenue recovery certificates. Ext.P5 is dated 25.3.2010 and Ext.P6 is dated 6.5.2010. According to the petitioners, no effective steps were taken to realise the amounts due to them by resorting to the revenue recovery proceedings based on the revenue recovery certificates issued by the fifth respondent. It is in the W.P.(C) NO.22182/2010 3 said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this Writ Petition by the second respondent. Though the second respondent has reiterated the steps taken for the purpose of effecting recovery, a scanning of the same would reveal that no effective steps were virtually taken to recover the amount due to the petitioners in terms of Ext.P2. As already noticed, revenue recovery certificates were issued by the fifth respondent as early as in the year 2009. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent has been stated that action was initiated to attach the property of the first respondent mentioned in the application submitted by the petitioners and also to effect sale in public auction for recovering the amount. Such an affidavit relating the above assurance was filed as early as on 16.8.2010. The fact is that even now, no effective steps were taken to effect recovery to realise the amount due to the petitioners as per Ext.P2. The petitioners have filed an additional document as Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is the true copy of the certificate of encumbrance issued by the Sub Registry, Balaramapuram pertaining to the period from 1.1.1992 to 20.5.2010. When this matter was taken up for final hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit in this Writ Petition, the second respondent has passed an intimation to the effect that the properties W.P.(C) NO.22182/2010 4 comprised in Sy.Nos.174/6 and 174/5 were already attached as per an order in O.S.No.171/2008 as per the order of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. I am at a loss to understand as to how the said order in O.S.No.171/2008 would stand in the way of the respondents in effecting recovery for the purpose of realising the amount due to the petitioners as per Ext.P2. In that context, it is to be noted that the very same second respondent, in Ext.P5, has specifically stated that the first respondent possesses properties in Sy.No.174/6, 174/5 and 561 of Athiyannor Village. Even if there was an order attaching the said properties, the second respondent could not have continued the revenue recovery proceedings, for the purpose of realising the amount on the strength of the revenue recovery certificates issued by the fifth respondent, as against the other properties comprised in survey number 561. In short, I am of the view that there is absolutely no justification for respondents 2 and 3 to assign such an excuse for their failure to perform their bounden duty. When properties not under any attachment is available, there is no reason for refusing to initiate recovery proceedings against such properties based on the revenue recovery certificates. When the fifth respondent has issued revenue recovery certificates, respondents 2 and 3 are bound to implement the same taking appropriate steps based on the recovery certificates to realise the same. In W.P.(C) NO.22182/2010 5 the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the fifth respondent to take appropriate steps to see that respondents 2 and 3 are taking effective steps based on the revenue recovery certificates for the purpose of effecting recovery of the amount due to the petitioners in terms of Ext.P2. This shall be done by the fifth respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.22182/2010 6 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.22182/2010 7