IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 W.A.No. 780 of 2010 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.1053/2009 Dated 18/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT / 1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE DIRECTOR, LOURDES HOSPITAL, PACHALAM, COCHIN, KERALA. BY ADV.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS / 2ND RESPONDENT & REVIEW PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA STATE PRIVATE CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (INTUC), LOURDES HOSPITAL UNIT, H.O. LABOUR PORT, KALABHAVAN ROAD, COCHIN-18. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.780 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of May 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is directed against an order passed on a review petition, which was directed against an order in an interlocutory application seeking Section 17B wages under the Industrial Disputes Act. By the impugned order in the review petition, the learned Single Judge clarified that Section 17B wages would be payable from the date of filing of the writ petition itself and not from the date of filing of the interlocutory application. 2. One of the contentions raised by the appellant is that though only five out of the six workmen had filed application for payment of Section 17B wages, learned Single Judge had ordered payment to all the six of them. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that going by the averments in the affidavit, it is apparent that all of them were gainfully employed. 3. Though there is some force in some of the contentions raised by the appellant, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain those contentions at this stage. Though learned counsel for the appellant has sought to challenge the very correctness of the award of Section 17B wages among other things, we are not persuaded to entertain this writ appeal, since in W.A.No.780 OF 2010 :: 2 :: our view, it will be only appropriate for the appellant to make a request before the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition itself at the earliest, which has been pending since 2006. Without prejudice to the right of the appellant to raise all his contentions before the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal is closed. 4. We make it clear that we have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the appellant. Writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes