IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9111 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------ WCC.71/2000 of W.C.C., KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. A. SHIHABUDEEN, S/O.A.BHAVA ALUKKAL HOUSE, MEPPADI, WAYANAD. 2. MUHAMMED FAIZAL,S/O. A.BHAVA ALUKKAL HOUSE, MEPPADI, WAYANAD. 3. SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O. A.BHAVA ALUKKAL HOUSE, MEPPADI, WAYANAD. 4. A. UBAID, S/O. A.BHAVA ALUKKAL HOUSE, MEPPADI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. MR.LALJI P.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- P. CHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN PULIYAMBATTA, MANIVAYAL, P.O.KOTTAMATTA, MEPPADI, WAYANAD. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 9111/2009-H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE WAYANAD DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, MANANTHAVADY DATED 23/09/99. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE WAYNAD DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, MANANTHAVADY DATED 09/11/2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/03/2009 IN L.A. PETITION IN W.C. CASE NO.71/2000 PASSED BY THE COURT OF COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KNNUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge Ext.P2 order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kannur, refusing to refer the respondent herein for a further medical examination by the Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. 2. The respondent herein is the claimant before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner praying for compensation on account of an injury sustained by him. It seems that originally as per Ext.A3 disability certificate, his disability was shown as 50%. Later on the request of the applicant for assessing the occupational disability, the District Medical Board, Wayanad assessed the occupational disability at 100% and permanent disability at 90%. By the time, it was 2004. W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2009 :: 2 :: 3. Later, the petitioners herein, apparently when the case came up for trial, moved an application referring the applicant for a medical examination by the Medical Board. This has been rejected under Ext.P2 and the same is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, at this stage, they may be permitted to take up a contention before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner as regards the acceptability of the second certificate and to adduce evidence to persuade the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to reject the same. It is open to the petitioners to do so. But such liberty should not result in the applicant again being subjected to medical examination. Without prejudice to such right of the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of. I make it W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2009 :: 3 :: clear that this direction will be operative, only if the claim petition is not yet disposed of by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//