AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Viju Abraham , J
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.
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 1st 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.
In the interregnum, pursuant to the interference of the mediators, the disputes between the petitioner and the 1st 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 1st 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.
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.
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 5th 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 5th 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 1st 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.