IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 13789 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------- (WCC.NO.90/2000 OF W.C.C., KANNUR) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.RENUKA, D/O.K.K.KUNHIKANNAN, ATHIRA, KOLMOTTA, PARASSINIKADAVU P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.M.PAREETH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KANNUR. 2. SMT.PILAKKAL SUSHEELA, W/O.LATE KUNNIMMAL KORAN, KUNNIMMAL HOUSE, P.O.NIDIYANGA, VIA.SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. KUMARI SHEEMA, D/O.LATE KUNNIMMAL KORAN, KUNNIMMAL HOUSE, P.O.NIDIYANGA, VIA.SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SHIJU, S/O.LATE KUNNIMMAL KORAN, KUNNIMMAL HOUSE, P.O.NIDIYANGA, VIA. SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF, R2 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.BENOY K.KADAVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13789/2008-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. FEBRUARY 2000 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 2 TO 4. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DTD. 03/09/02 FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 12/01/07 PRAYING FOR RECALLING SRI. V.T. NARAYANAN. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE I.A. DTD. 03/12/07 FOR SUMMONING EXCISE INSPECTOR, TALIPARAMB EXCISE RANGE OFFICE ALONG WITH THE TREE TAX REGISTER TILL THE YEAR 1988-89. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. NIL ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF RW4. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF RW1. WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.13789/2008-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5 order by which the first respondent rejected the application to receive the list of witness and issue summons to him to produce certain documents, as per Exts.P3 and P4. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. While admitting the writ petition, this Court stayed the passing of the final order and it was clarified that the proceedings can go on. But, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 that after the interim order was passed by this Court, the further proceedings and taking of evidence and hearing have not been completed and the matter is still pending at that stage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the examination of those witnesses are required in support of his defence before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. One witness is the Secretary of the W.P.(C). No.13789/2008 -:2:- Sreekandapuram Range Chethu Thozhilali Union, who was examined as RW4 and has to be recalled. But, he did not produce the wage register summoned by the Commissioner. At that point of time, he had deposed that Wage Register for the period from 1988-89 are not traceable. But, subsequently those registers have been traced out, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The remaining witness is the Excise Inspector, Thaliparamba Excise Range, who has to be examined for proving the Tree Tax Register for the period from 1988-89. The Excise Inspector, Sreekandapuram Excise Range has already been examined. But, he had deposed that the Tree Tax Register is in the custody of the Excise Inspector, Thaliparamba Excise Range. 5. It is true that the Commissioner has taken a view in Ext.P5 that the petitioner is only trying to get over the adverse evidence on record and to prolong the matter. But, in the light of the contentions of the parties, it is only proper that the petitioner is allowed to adduce evidence, especially, in the light of the fact that the documentary evidence as sought for by the petitioner is not before the Commissioner now and no prejudice will be caused. 6. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to allow the W.P.(C). No.13789/2008 -:3:- petitioner to examine these two witnesses to prove the documents which are sought to be proved through them. 7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos, 2 to 4 submitted that a time frame has to be fixed by this Court for concluding the evidence and passing the order since the matter has already been delayed and the writ petition itself was pending for the last two years. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to complete the examination of the witnesses and to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms