BINNY LTD Vs. REGIONAL POULTRY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Madras with an office at Willing don Island. In the year 1985, one R. Sobhana filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Quilon alleging that 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 2-12-83. 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 2nd 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, Regional Poultry officer to pay the amount to the claimant and further directed the petitioner herein to indemnify the Regional Poultry officer under S.12(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(2.) The Director of Animal Husbandry paid the amount on 29-11-88. 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 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 13-12-89. Thereafter, nothing was heard in the matter. Petitioner has now received Ext. P2 notice under the Revenue Recovery Act for payment of Rs. 2300/- with 6% interest from 24-1-84. Petitioner challenges the Revenue Recovery proceedings.

(3.) I heard the petitioner's counsel. According to the petitioner issuance of Exts. P2 and P3 notices are illegal and arbitrary and the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as the claim is barred by limitation. Petitioner alleges that that, the amount ordered to be deposited in WCC. 19/1985 was deposited before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 29-11-88 and the amount was released to the claimants on 13-12-89, and therefore, the revenue recovery proceedings taken after a period of 3 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 reported in John v. District Collector ( 1989 (2) KLT 831 ) and Nanu v. State of Kerala ( 1987 (2) KLT 921 ) wherein it is held: