IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 W.A.No. 2905 of 2009 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33549/2009 Dated 01/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3: KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD . REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 6TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT: 1. N.M.THAMPI NALIYATH HOUSE THIRUVANKULAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM 3. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY KANAYANNUR TALUK) ERNAKULAM 4. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM BY ADV.B.GOPAKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.2905 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of December 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER, J. Appellant impugns two interim orders dated 1st and 18th December, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.33549/09. By the two orders, learned Single Judge has directed that the amount covered under Ext.P1 order be recovered by the District Labour Officer forthwith. 2. Ext.P1 order was passed by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act directing the appellant to pay a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- to respondent No.1 with future interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realisation. 3. We do not propose to refer to the history of this long pending litigation between the appellant and respondent No.1 who was admittedly a workman under the former. Suffice it to say that respondent No.1 obtained Ext.P1 order from the Labour Court contending that the award passed by the Labour Court in his favour in I.D.No.80/1985 dated, February 24, 1987 had not been implemented and that the dues payable thereunder had not been so far disbursed to him. 4. The learned Single Judge passed the impugned orders even before the appellant filed its counter affidavit and thereby partially allowed the writ petition in which the only prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to the appellant and the revenue officials to recover the entire amounts due under Ext.P1. W.A.2905 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 5. It is brought to our notice that the writ petition was filed on November 20, 2009. The first impugned order was passed on December 1, 2009 directing the Labour Officer to initiate proceedings to recover the amount covered under Ext.P1. Later the second order was passed directing the Government Pleader to file compliance report. It is the admitted position that the appellant has subsequently filed writ petition 36731/09 impugning Ext.P1 order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.Gopakumar, learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore the impugned orders are set aside. 7. Writ appeal is allowed. The learned Single Judge may pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties in the two writ petitions referred to above. Writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (S.R.BANNURMATH) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes