BINNY LTD Vs. REGL POULTRY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Madras with an office at Willingdon Island. In the year 1985, one R. Sobhana filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Quilon, alleging mat her husband, Babu Raj, met with an accident while employed by the petitioner in the work of loading and unloading of "care feed" at the Regional Poultry Farm on December 2, 1983. First respondent herein was also impleaded as a party. Although notice was served on the respondents in the case it was not contested and finally the second respondent, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, passed an award for realising an amount of Rs. 23,100 with interest thereon and directed the first respondent, the Regional Poultry Officer, to pay the amount to the claimant and further directed the petitioner herein to indemnify the Regional Poultry Officer under Section 12 (2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(2.) THE Director of Animal Husbandry paid the amount on November 29, 1988. An appeal was filed by the Regional Poultry Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, as M. F. A. 959 of 1988 before this court against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The petitioner also was impleaded as a party. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The amount deposited by the Regional Poultry Officer was released to the claimant on December 13, 1989. Thereafter, nothing was heard in the matter. The petitioner has now received Exhibit P-2 notice under the Revenue Recovery Act for payment of Rs. 23,100 with six per cent interest from January 24, 1984. The petitioner challenges the revenue recovery proceedings.

(3.) I heard the petitioner's counsel. According to the petitioner, issuance of Exhibits P-2 and P-3 notices are illegal and arbitrary, and the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as the claim is barred by limitation. The petitioner alleges that the amount ordered to be deposited in W. C. C. No. 19 of 1985 was deposited before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on November 29, 1988, and the amount was released to the claimants on December 13, 1989, and, therefore, the revenue recovery proceedings taken after a period of three years are illegal and if at all the petitioner is liable to pay any amount, the claim is barred by limitation. It is pointed out that a time-barred debt cannot be allowed to be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act. Reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court in John v. District Collector, (1989) 2 KLT 831, and Nami v. State of Kerala, (1987) 2 KLT 921, wherein it is held (at page 923):