1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.112 of 2011 N.Shanmugam Pillai : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, at Nagercoil at Kenyakumari District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli. 3.The Kanyakumari District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer, Nagercoil -1 at Kanyakumari District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 09.09.2010 within a time frame fixed by this court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.A.Nandagopan Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.C.Godwin ORDER The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of his representation dated 09.09.2010 on merits. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the third respondent Bank. Since the third respondent has not made the payment in accordance with the settlement arrived at between the parties on 04.02.1997, the petitioner has filed an application in P.G.No.91 of 2003 before the second respondent for payment of arrears of gratuity. The second respondent after notice to the third respondent passed an award on 10.02.2010. As per the said award, the third respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.67,384/-. Since the third respondent has not satisfied with the award, the petitioner has submitted a representation before the second respondent on 09.09.2010 requesting him to issue a certificate to the first respondent to recover the arrears of gratuity as per the award dated 10.02.2010. Since there was no follow up action, the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the Bank has already filed an appeal and it was returned for compliance of certain https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 remarks. According to the learned counsel, the matter pertains to 39 employees and it would be difficult for the bank to pay the amount. 5. There is no dispute that an award was passed in favour of the petitioner as early as on 10.02.2010. Admittedly, the award has not been set aside. Therefore, the third respondent is bound to pay the amount. It is always open to them to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. However, under the guise of filing an appeal, they cannot postpone the matter. 6. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires consideration by the second respondent. 7. The second respondent is directed to issue a recovery certificate to the first respondent so as to enable him to recover the amount from the third respondent, payable to the petitioner, as per the award passed in P.G.No.91 of 2003 dated 10.02.2010. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, at Nagercoil at Kenyakumari District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli. 3.The Special Officer, The Kanyakumari DistrictCentral Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nagercoil -1 at Kanyakumari District. +1cc to Mr.C.Godwin, Advocate SR.No.5057 +1cc to Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate SR.No.5090 +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.5230 W.P.(MD)No.112 of 2011 09.02.2011 rj2 PA/04.03.2011/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/