Elsamma E.X vs K.Suresh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5767 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

          Con.Case(C).No.178 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 1160/2020

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2021 IN WP(C) 1160/2020(T) OF
                       HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             ELSAMMA E.X.,
             AGED 39 YEARS,
             W/O.BINOY KOSHY, SHIJI BHAVAN, MUSSAVARIKUNNU, NEAR
             PUNALUR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR P.O.,
             KOLLAM-691 305.

             BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC:

             K.SURESH, AGED (NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITINER),
             S/O. (NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
             THE TAHSILDHAR, PUNALUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR,
             KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 306.



             BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT MABLE C KURIAN



     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C)178/21

IN WP(C).1160/2020                   2




                                    JUDGMENT

Complaining of the refusal on the part of the respondent herein to

initiate steps to realize the amount awarded to the petitioner by the District

Labour Officer, Kollam, towards back wages from her employer, the

petitioner had approached this Court seeking directions.

2. This Court, while disposing the matter, had directed the 3rd

respondent to expedite the proceedings so as to enable the petitioner to

recover the amount awarded to her without any further delay.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the directions in the

judgment have not been complied with.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. It is

stated that there are two items of properties - one owned by the defaulter

Smt.Elsy Babu and the other item was in the ownership of the defaulter

and her husband. However, in respect of the above properties, there are

numerous court attachments. In the said circumstances, the Tahsildar

requested the District Collector to file a claim petition for realisation of

arrears. It is also stated that since the defaulter is a lady, the provisions of

Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked. Con.Case(C)178/21

5. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondent

has wilfully flouted the orders of this Court. The respondent shall diligently

take steps to realize the amount so that the benefits of the award reaches

the petitioner.

This Contempt Case is closed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE NS Con.Case(C)178/21

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2020 IN WPC NO.1160 OF 2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.01.2020.

RESPONDENT'S/S ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE