S.RAMACHANDRAN ACHARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 1.4.2013 are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 3. Though substituted service of notice has been duly taken out to contesting the respondent No.4, there is no appearance for that party.

(3.) As per the case projected in this Writ Petition, it is averred that the petitioner was an employee of the establishment run by the 4th respondent and his wife. That the petitioner was denied of employment, against which he has raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. As the said award of the Industrial Tribunal was implemented by the Management, the petitioner has preferred Claim Petition, C.P.No.25/2002 before the Labour Court, Kollam. By Ext.P-1 dated 2.7.2002 the Labour Court awarded an amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- in the said Claim Petition. The said amount was also paid by the 4th respondent to the petitioner. In these circumstances, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the 4th respondent. That in the meanwhile, the 4th respondent has transferred his landed property in the name of his wife. The 3rd respondent-Tahsildar (RR), Kollam, had proceeded to take Revenue Recovery steps against the 4th respondent and his wife for an amount of Rs. 2,91,000/- which stood as sales tax arrears and the property was attached. The petitioner was made to understand that the amount due to him under Ext.P-1 will also be recovered from the said property and that the date notified for auction of the property was adjourned for several times and each time, the petitioner had arranged for prospective buyers so as to ensure payment of amounts due to him. The petitioner was informed that the 4th respondent and his wife had promised to remit the entire amounts due in instalments. Later, the petitioner submitted Ext.P-4 complaint before the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Kollam. By Ext.P-5 letter dated 19.12.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar (RR), the petitioner was informed that there are no property in the name of the 4th respondent and that the property which was put to auction has been purchased by the Government as 'bought in land ' towards arrears of sales tax. The petitioner had also submitted complaints before the Chief Minister's Public Grievance Cell, known as 'Sutharya Keralam' and by Ext.P-8, the petitioner was forwarded with a copy of the report alleged to have been received from the department concerned. According to the petitioner, the said report, enclosed along with Ext.P-8, has nothing to do with the complaint submitted by the petitioner and hence, he has submitted Ext.P-9 complaint, etc. It is in the light of these factual averments, the petitioner has filed the aforecatptioned Writ Petition (Civil) with the aforementioned prayers.