IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33555 of 2009(L) -------------------------- ID.62/1998 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE PHILIP, S/O.PHILIP THEKKENATTU HOUSE, KIDANGOOR SOUTH PO,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, MEENACHIL TALUK PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 3. MERLY KURIAN, KALLUVELIL VEEDU KIDANGOOR SOUTH PO, KOTTAYAM. 4. SHERLY KURIAN KALLUVELIL VEEDU KIDANGOOR SOUTH PO, KOTTAYAM. 5. MARY MATHEW, KALLUVELIL VEEDU KIDANGOOR SOUTH PO, KOTTAYAM. 6. MINI GEORGE KANIYAMPARAMBIL VEEDU, MUTHOLLY PO KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 33555 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is one of the managements in I.D.Nos. 62/1998 and 63/1998 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. Ext. P5 common award was passed by the Labour Court in respect of the same holding that denial of employment to the workmen concerned, by the petitioner, was not justifiable. But, instead of directing reinstatement with back wages, the Labour Court directed payment of Rs. 30,000/- each to the workmen as compensation. Pursuant thereto, Exts.P6 and P7 revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the same. 2. I have heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner . 3. Ext. P5 award is dated 28-2-2006. The petitioner is challenging the same on 20-11-2009. The petitioner has not given sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay of more than 3 years. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in view of the unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on that ground. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.