SARANYA K.S. Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) AFTER the Original Petition was filed the petitioner filed I.A.No.13613/12 seeking admittance of additional documents Exts.P5, P6 and P7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is contended that the first prayer for setting aside Ext.P3 award is not maintainable in law in view of binding judicial precedent in Thomas v. Thomas Job (2005 KHC 1168). The petitioner's allegations are all denied. As regards Exts.P5, P6 and P7, it is submitted that it is not clear as to whether the petitioner filed or attempted to file Exts.P5, P6 and P7. Lastly, it is contended that the attempt of the petitioner is to see whether Exts.P1 and P2 which have already been decided finally by Ext.P5 can be reopened. This is not possible, it is contended.

(3.) MR .G.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents places strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Thomas v. Thomas Job (2005 KHC 1168) and submitted that relief No.1 is not grantable at all. As regards relief No.2 also, the learned counsel submitted that, that relief is not grantable as granting that relief will amount to recalling Ext.P3. In reply Mr.Varghese submitted that the petitioner has a genuine grievance and persons with genuine grievances should have a remedy.