Kerala High Court
E.N.Assian Alias Hassain vs Velayudhan on 12 June, 2023
WP(C) No. 2003 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2003 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
E.N.ASSIAN ALIAS HASSAIN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.MOIDU,ELEDATH
HOIUSE,PANTHEERANKAVU.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673019.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SMT.M.SHAJNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 VELAYUDHAN
S/O.KORAPPAN,PULLUVALAPPIL
VEETTIL,NELLAYIKODE,PANTHEERANKAVU.P.O,KOZHIKODE-
673019.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO ITS GOVERNMENT
LABOUR AND REHABILITATION
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
KOZHIKODE-673001.
4 THE LABOUR COURT
KOZHIKODE-673001.
5 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
OFFICE OF DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,CIVIL
STATION,KOZHIKODE-673020.
6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE,KOZHIKODE-673020.
7 TAHSILDARR.R
KOZHIKODE-673020.
8 THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE LABOUR
COMMISSIONER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.
BY ADVS.
E.NARAYANAN
G.P., SRI. SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE
WP(C) No. 2003 of 2014 2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 2003 of 2014 3
VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
===========================
WP(C) No. 2003 of 2014
============================
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts P3, P4
and P5 and for a declaration that the liability if any, that the
petitioner had pursuant to award in I.D. No. 9/2004 and award in
C.P. No. 37/2006 of Labour Court, Kozhikode has been discharged
by him and seeking a further direction that the revenue recovery
proceedings initiated and pending against the property of his
mother is illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
2. In I.D. No. 9/2004 which was pending before the Labour
Court, Kozhikode, an ex-parte award was passed directing
reinstatement of the 1st respondent in the service of the petitioner.
Alleging non-compliance of the directions in the award, C.P. No.
37/2006 was preferred by the 1 st respondent and the Labour Court,
Kozhikode by order dated 21.08.2007 allowed the said claim
petition and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- with cost of the proceedings. The said order was also not
complied with due to financial constraints of the petitioner.
3. In the interregnum, pursuant to the interference of the
mediators, the disputes between the petitioner and the 1 st
respondent has been amicably settled out of Court and Ext P1
agreement was also entered into, wherein the petitioner as well as
the 1st respondent has agreed to settle their claim for a total
amount of Rs. 55,000/- towards full and final settlement of all the
claims including that arose from the award in I.D. No. 9/2004.
Pursuant to Ext P1, Rs. 55,000/- was paid to the 1 st respondent and
Ext P2 is the receipt evidencing the same. Thereafter the District
Labour Officer as per Ext P3, intimated the petitioner that if the
amount is not settled, proceedings would be initiated under the
Revenue Recovery Act to recover the said amount. Thereafter Exts
P4 and P5 notices of sale of property is issued and later Ext P5
notices of sale was issued.
4. The case of the petitioner is that, in view of the
settlement entered into as per Ext P1 and the payment of the
amount as per the terms of settlement as is evident from Ext P2
receipt, the proceedings now initiated as per Exts P4 and P5 are
absolutely arbitrary and unjust.
5. When the matter came up for admission, this Court has
passed an order staying the operation of Exts P4 and P5 revenue
recovery proceedings on condition that the petitioner remits the
collection charges due under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act
within a period of one month. Therefore, after going through the
pleadings, I am of the opinion that the above writ petition could be
disposed of with a direction to the 5 th respondent to verify whether
the terms of settlement has in fact been complied with and the
amount has been paid as per the settlement. The 5 th respondent
shall take a decision in the matter within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording
an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 1 st
respondent. If the 5th respondent is satisfied in the verification that
the amount due under the award has been duly satisfied, he shall
issue necessary direction to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 not to further
proceed under the Revenue Recovery Act pursuant to Exts P4 and
P5. Till a decision is taken as directed above, all further
proceedings pursuant to Exts P4 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance.
With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2003/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 8-11-2012
EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE IST RESPONDENT
HEREIN
EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF
RS.55,000/- ON 8-11-2012
EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G(1)5890/07 DATED
11-2-2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE IST
RESPONDENT
EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL PROPOSING
SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE MOTHER OF THE
PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE DATED 17-10-
2013 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.DR-25/07-
08/WC/F-2.
