IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3803 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.K. SASIDHARAN, AZHICKAL HOUSE, THANKAMONY .O., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI 685 515. BY ADVS. MR.V.G.ARUN, MR.JAIBY PAUL. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER/DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL OFICER, IDUSTRIES CENTRE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR 680 003. 2. INDIAN COFFEE BOARD WORKER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. 4227, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR -680 001. 3. PRESIDENT , INDIAN COFFEE BOARD WORKER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. 4227, THRISSUR – 680 001. 4. MANAGER, INDIAN COFFEE HOUSE, THIRUVALLA. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. MR.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR), MR..GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.3803 of 2009-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner's complaint is that his employer, the second respondent, is not complying with Ext.P7 order of stay of reversion. The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly stated on the query of this Court that the reversion was some time in January, 2008. Ext.P7 order of the Arbitration Court was in May, 2008. That order only stays the order of reversion dated 8-1-2008. The fact remains that following the reversion, the petitioner is now working in the category to which he was reverted. This means that unless any court or authority gives a further order restoring the status of the petitioner in the higher post, the order of reversion has taken effect and could be interfered with only in a final order of the Arbitration Court. This does WP(C)3803/2009 -: 2 :- not, however, preclude the Arbitration Court to consider any further interim relief subject, of course, to the well settled propositions of law governing such situations as laid down by the Apex Court. With Ext.P7 as it now stands, I do not find any ground to hold that the second respondent should be compelled to put back the petitioner in the post from which he was reverted. The writ petition is hence dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of parties, to be raised before the Arbitration Court. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/240209