IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2007 / 8TH SRAVANA 1929 WP(C).No. 31475 of 2006(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PUTHAN PURAYIL KAMALAKSHI, W/O.ACHUTHAN, MUNDAVALAPPIL, P.O.CHOKLI, NIDUMBRAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KANNUR-1. 3. THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY. 4. THAKIDIPURATHU ULAHANNAN, S/O.CHACKO, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., KILIANTHARA VIA, KANNUR-670 700. 5. K.S.CHACKO, S/O.SKARIA, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., KILIANTHARA VIA, KANNUR-670 700. BY ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO, SC, KTWWF BOARD G.P. SHRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 31475/06. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT. P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.981/05 AND W.P.C.NO.24332/06. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER TO R1 AND R2 DTD.28.10.06. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER BY R2 DTD.1.11.06. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ========================== W.P.(C).No.31475 of 2006 ========================== Dated this the 30th day of July, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenged proceedings for recovery of Toddy Workers Welfare Fund dues. An interim order was passed on 4.12.2006, which reads thus: “Even though 6th respondent in W.P.31037/2006 is the person proceeded against for recovery of Toddy Workers Welfare Fund dues, in view of the payment offered by petitioner in that W.P. who is the assignee and the petitioner in W.P.31475/2006 who is the co-licencee, there will be direction to the concerned Toddy Workers Fund Inspector to receive the Demand Draft for Rs.1,95,000/- already offered, credit the same and give a detailed statement of balance liability to petitioners in W.Ps. and file a copy of the statement in this court within two weeks from now. Since petitioners have undertaken to clear balance liability also, recovery of balance will remain stayed for one month from now.” It is admitted that the petitioner has not paid the amount as directed in the order. That being so, the petitioner is not entitled to any more indulgence from this court since admittedly the liability survives. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge. 2