IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 471 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4638/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- WEST FORT ACADEMY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (WAHE), M.G.KAVU, POTTORE, THRISSUR - 680 581 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.M.MOHANDAS. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIYYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 3. SHRI.RAJESH M, DIRECTOR, HI-FI-HOUSE, KEEPING (P) LTD., HI-FI BHAVAN, 121/396/2, AISWARYA NAGAR, WEST FORT, THRISSUR - 680 581. 4. SMT.KARTHYAYANI, W/O.NARAYANAN, NARANGALIL HOUSE, POTTORE, THRISSUR - 680 581. 5. SMT.LEELA, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, DEEPA NIVAS, M.G.KAVU, POTTORE, THRISSUR - 680 581. 6. SMT.SHAILA, W/O.RAVI, PUTHUPPALLY HOUSE, KUTTUR P.O., THRISSUR 7. SMT.OMANA, W/O.SREEDHARAN, EDATHARA HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMB, KUTTUR P.O., THRISSUR 8. SMT.RAMAVIJAYAN, KUNNANATU HOUSE, POTTORE, M.G.KAVU, THRISSUR - 680 581. 9. SMT.REJANI, W/O.JAYAN, KARAMATTIL HOUSE, KUTTUR P.O., VALIYAPARAMBA, THRISSUR R.P.No. 471 of 2010 2 10. SMT.PUSHPA, D/O.MEENAKSHI, CHAKRATH HOUSE, P.O.VELAPPAYA, M.G.KAVU, THRISSUR - 680 581. 11. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY FOR R4-10 SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY FOR R4-10 SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY FOR R4-10 SRI.ABU MATHEW FOR R4-10 SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE FOR R4-10 SRI.K.V.GEORGE FOR R4-10 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No.471 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.4638 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 22nd June, 2010 ORDER Ravindran, J. Heard the learned counsel on both sides, perused the review petition, the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 10 and the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner. 2. After hearing the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side and on going through the pleadings we are not satisfied that adequate grounds have been made out warranting a review of the interim order passed by this Court on 27.4.2010. The right of the review petitioners to challenge the order passed by the District Labour Officer has been safeguarded in the said order. The review petitioners have also taken advantage of the interim order and engaged workers of V-Care Enterprises to do the cleaning, sweeping and house-keeping work on a provisional basis. The interim order passed by this Court on 27.4.2010 was only a measure adopted by this Court to have the dispute sorted out at the intervention of the District Labour Officer. If the review petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the District Labour Officer, they can challenge the same by amending the instant writ petition or by R.P.No.471/2010 2 instituting a fresh writ petition. 3. In such circumstances, we find no grounds to entertain the review petition. It is accordingly closed without prejudice to the right of the review petitioners to challenge the order passed by the District Labour Officer by amending the instant writ petition or by filing a separate writ petition. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge TKS