AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Shaji P. Chaly, J. - First petitioner is a trade union espousing cause of employees of Hotel Sidhartha Regency situated in Thrissur run by respondents 1 and 2. The workmen of the establishment were denied employment and were not paid wages for the months of February and March, 2008. Bonus was also denied to them. The issues were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad and by Ext. P1 award, Tribunal held that the workers are entitled to closure compensation and notice pay in terms of Section 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for bonus @ 8.33% for the year 2007-08. The Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Thrissur in pursuance to the award, initiated revenue recovery steps against the first respondent. First respondent has challenged the same in W.P.(C). No. 31888/2014 and the workers of the establishment approached the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act and the applications are pending consideration. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 5,52,433/- is due towards payment of gratuity.
Matters being so, first respondent sold the hotel and its premises to respondents 3 to 5. On coming to know about the transfer of the hotel and its premises, first petitioner submitted a representation to the sixth respondent objecting to transfer of registry, in respect of the above property. However, no action was initiated. It is thus seeking necessary direction to the sixth respondent, this writ petition is filed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth.
Admittedly, first respondent is the title holder of the property. Therefore, when an application is filed by a purchaser seeking transfer of registry, unless and until there is interdiction by a court of law, with respect to the transfer, it cannot be denied. This is the settled legal decision. A reference to the following judgments would show, it is a well settled proposition of law, and I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down so:-
i) Thulasibhai C.C. v. State of Kerala and Others [2010 (4) KHC 142],
ii) Sudan v. State of Kerala [2013(4) KLT 563] and
iii) Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer and Others [2015 KHC 3676]
Therefore, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get any relief as sought for under the Transfer of Registry Rules. However, the liberty of the petitioners with respect to the claims is left open. If there is any change in circumstances, consequent to any recovery action, the transfer of registry authority will take note of the same and pass appropriate orders, accordingly.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.