Murugan P vs Sivadasan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jul 05, 2023

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1387232

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1387232
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Amit Rawal
Decided On: Jul 05, 2023
Case Number: WP(C)/21548/2012

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murugan P

Respondent

Sivadasan

Excerpt

.....commissioner, palakkad, pin-678001. sri.aruj ajay sankar, sr.gp this writ petition (civil) having been finally heard on 05.07.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:j u d g m e n tpetitioner, who was the respondent in s.a.no.1/2005 before the appellate authority under section 18(2) of the kerala shops and commercial establishment act, 1960 ('act', for short), hasapproached this court laying challenge to the orderdated 18.4.2012, ext.p1, whereby the appellate authority had ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of rs.84,000/- as compensation within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of the order failing which the amount will be recovered under the provisions of the act. the petitioner was also directed to pay an amount of rs.7,000/- as damages. the present writ petition was filed on various grounds.2. on perusal of the paper book, it is evident that notice sent to the first respondent/employee, was not served and returned with an endorsement 'not known'. while admitting the writ petition interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to exhibit p1 order was also granted.3. on 8.4.2013, an order was passed directing the petitioner to take fresh steps for service of notice on the first respondent by speed post and also through the counsel who appeared before thesecond respondent. however, no steps were taken. when the matter was taken up on 21.10.2022, again an order was passed to take steps. there was no response to the said order also.4. as per the office note, no service has been effected on the first respondent and notice sent returned with an endorsement 'not known'. it appears that petitioner is unnecessary delaying the matter.writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution for not complying with the order of this court. the interim stay granted in this writ petition would stand vacated. sd/- amit rawal judge jg

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945 PETITIONER/S: MURUGAN P AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.PAZHANIMALA, PROPRIETOR, BALAJI STEELS, 26/426, VANDIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT/S: 1 SIVADASAN S/O.MANICKAN, PADATHU COLONY, BEHIND CIVIL STATION, KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD- 678001. 2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD, PIN-678001. SRI.ARUJ AJAY SANKAR, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner, who was the respondent in S.A.No.1/2005 before the appellate authority under Section 18(2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1960 ('Act', for short), has

approached this Court laying challenge to the order

dated 18.4.2012, Ext.P1, whereby the appellate authority had ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.84,000/- as compensation within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of the order failing which the amount will be recovered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as damages. The present writ petition was filed on various grounds.

2. On perusal of the paper book, it is evident that notice sent to the first respondent/employee, was not served and returned with an endorsement 'not known'. While admitting the writ petition interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 order was also granted.

3. On 8.4.2013, an order was passed directing the petitioner to take fresh steps for service of notice on the first respondent by speed post and also through the counsel who appeared before the

second respondent. However, no steps were taken. When the matter was taken up on 21.10.2022, again an order was passed to take steps. There was no response to the said order also.

4. As per the office note, no service has been effected on the first respondent and notice sent returned with an endorsement 'not known'. It appears that petitioner is unnecessary delaying the matter.

Writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution for not complying with the order of this Court. The interim stay granted in this writ petition would stand vacated. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE jg

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Murugan P vs Sivadasan Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Amit Rawal