WA NO. 461 OF 2025 and conctd. case 1 2025:KER:26768 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 461 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.6010 OF 2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT(S)/1 st RESPONDENT: VALLIYAMMA AGED 61 YEARS NEDUMKARANA DIVISION, HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD.,, PUTHIYAPADY, RIPPON, P.O.MEPPADY-673 577., PIN - 673575 BY ADVS. P.K.RAMKUMAR ANITHA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT: 1 THE MANAGER, HARRISON MALAYALAM LIMITED ARAPATTA ESTATE,, NEDUMKARANA DIVISION, MEPPADI P.O.,, WAYANAD-673 575., PIN - 673575 2 LABOUR COURT KANNUR-670 002., PIN - 670002 OTHER PRESENT: SRI E K NANDAKUMAR SR SRI JAI MOHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 25.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.545/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 461 OF 2025 and conctd. case 2 2025:KER:26768 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 545 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.6031 OF 2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: SMT.VALLIYAMMA AGED 61 YEARS NEDUMKARANA DIVISION, HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED,, PUTHIYAPADY, RIPPON, P.O. MEPPADY-673577., PIN - 673577 BY ADVS. P.K.RAMKUMAR ANITHA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT: 1 THE MANAGER, HARRISONS MALAYALAM ARAPATTA ESTATE, NEDUMKARANA DIVISION,, MEPPADI P.O., WAYANAD-673575., PIN - 673575 2 LABOUR COURT, KANNUR-670 002. OTHER PRESENT: SRI E K NANDAKUMAR SR SRI JAI MOHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 25.03.2025, ALONG WITH WA.461/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 461 OF 2025 and conctd. case 3 2025:KER:26768 JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J. This Court on 20.3.2025 (W.A No.545 of 2025) had considering the attenuating circumstances passed the following order: Inter alia alleges that the award of the Labour Court has been set aside by the Single Bench. The Labour Court had ordered for reinstatement with full backwages. On the basis of the allegation that the husband of the appellant herein had occupied the property of the estate, lost the litigation qua the eviction of the premises before this court. Unfortunately, the husband and her son died due to malignancy and now the appellant is also suffering from the disease. The appellant is interested only in the payment of the compensation and retirement benefits. Learned Single Bench has set aside the order of the Labour Court only on the technical ground, by considering the judgment of supreme court, that if the Labour Court finds that the enquiry was conducted improperly, an opportunity should have been given to the parties to lead evidence before the Labour Court. However, learned Single Bench, while accepting the writ petition in part, had directed the respondent herein to pay the retirement benefits which includes gratuity. Mr.Jaimohan who is present in Court accepts notice. At this stage, we confronted him as to whether the management is willing to come out with a consolidated amount of compensation to bring a quietus to the dispute considering the attenuating circumstance, as noticed by us. Post this matter on 25.03.2025 for taking instructions. In the meantime, respondent is directed to release the retirement benefits, if the same has not been released. WA NO. 461 OF 2025 and conctd. case 4 2025:KER:26768 2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that Smt. Valliyamma was the worker of the Harrisons Malayalam Limited, Arapatta Estate in Wayanad and for undertaking the job of the labour was given a line room, constructed for living of the workers. Behind/adjacent to the line room, there was a land allotted to her for the purpose of kitchen garden. But instead of using it for kitchen garden, raised a temporary hut in a portion of the land and the remaining area was vacant but bounded by her. For taking the possession of unauthorized occupation, the respondent-writ petitioner instituted a suit which has been decreed and execution petition is stated to be pending. The order extracted above reveals the medical condition of the petitioner and her family members. 3. Sri.E.K Nandakumar, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri. Jaimohan for the respondent during the course of the argument have given certain suggestions. Considering the predicament and the ailment put a quietus to the controversy, the following arrangements have been arrived at. 1. Appellant-respondent in the writ petition would vacate the line room within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and also the vacant portion bounded around the temporary house constructed by WA NO. 461 OF 2025 and conctd. case 5 2025:KER:26768 her. However, the appellant-respondent in the writ petition would be permitted to stay in the temporary constructed house till her life time without payment of any charges. 2. In case, the appellant-respondent adheres to the aforementioned requirement and vacate the premises mentioned above, the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 in the intra court appeal shall release all the terminal benefits within two weeks thereafter. Both the appeals stand disposed of. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- sab K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE