IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 731 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.38458/2010 Dated 13/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): / PETITIONER -------------- KOLLAM LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q 1004, STADIUM COMPLEX, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER KIP (RB CIRCLE) PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 001. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.731 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to allow the prayer of the appellant i.e. for releasing payment for the work executed by them. 3. The appellant is a labour contract society, which was awarded a construction work. While the case of the learned Government Pleader is that no work worth any value is done, the appellant's claim is that they have done certain work pursuant to the award of contract and they are entitled to be paid for the same, no matter the contract is cancelled for non- performance. Learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the W.A.No.731/2011 -2- matter for the reason that the contract is cancelled for breach and the respondents are entitled to claim costs and damages for non-performance . We are in complete agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge that it is a matter to be seen after reawarding and completion of the work as to whether respondents have any claim over the appellant. On going through the pleadings, we notice that apart from stating reason for the delay in the work, the appellant has not stated details of any work alleged to have been executed. Learned Government Pleader has submitted that except removal of sand or waste, the appellant had not done anything though the work was awarded in 2005. We therefore do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg