Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1000 (KER)

PUSHPALATHA v. STATE OF KERALA

2015-07-29

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Both the writ petitions are with respect to the identical issue. W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 challenges the revenue recovery proceedings initiated, while W.P.(C).No.6198 of 2012 seeks implementation of the said proceedings. 2. W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 is taken as the leading case and the parties and documents are referred to as stated in the said writ petition. The admitted facts are that, one Janaki died out of an employment injury while employed with one Sankaranarayanan. Sankaranarayanan's daughter-in-law is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011, who seeks to avoid the distress created on the property, which she got conveyed from Sankaranarayanan. The additional 6th respondent in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.6198 of 2012, is the son of the deceased Janaki, one of the claimants before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner. 3. The death occurred on 22.02.1998. The son of the deceased, along with other legal heirs, approached the Employee's Compensation Commissioner for compensation and an award dated 19.06.2006 was passed determining an amount of Rs.1,63,070/- [Rupees one lakh, sixty three thousand and seventy only] with 12% interest from the date of accident, as the compensation. Though the award is not produced in both the writ petitions, it is an admitted fact that it has become final. The issue to be considered is whether the recovery proceedings can be proceeded against the daughter-in-law of the employer, who claims to be a bonafide purchaser of two properties from the employer. 4. Sankaranarayanan transferred two items of property to his daughter-in-law by deed Nos.1456/99 and 1386/06, both of Sub Registrar's Office, Vilayur, dated respectively 22.07.1999 and 10.07.2006; both after the death of Janaki. The daughter-in-law contends that the said purchases were bonafide purchases, for consideration paid to the father-in-law and merely because the vendee is a close relative of the vendor, there can be no distress created on the property. 5. Section 14A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [for brevity "the Act"] creates a statutory charge on the assets of an employer on the liability accrued before the date of the transfer. This Court in K.Sreedharan v. Thajudeen Koya [1996 (1) KLJ 246] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha [ 2007 (4) KLT 386 ] found that the statutory charge would start from the accrual of the liability which could be related back to the date of injury. This Court in K.Sreedharan v. Thajudeen Koya [1996 (1) KLJ 246] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha [ 2007 (4) KLT 386 ] found that the statutory charge would start from the accrual of the liability which could be related back to the date of injury. Hence, both the transactions, that occurred after the death of the employee, would be subject to the statutory charge created by Section 14A of the Act. In such circumstance, W.P.(C). No.35005 of 2011 would stand dismissed. 6. W.P.(C).No.6198 of 2012 is allowed, directing implementation of the revenue recovery proceedings. However, in the context that the writ petitions pending for long before this Court, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 or her representative and if necessary the employer, and the representative of the legal heir shall appear before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad on 20.08.2015 and produce a copy of the award. The Industrial Tribunal shall determine the amounts payable as per the award as on 31.08.2015. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 or the employer shall be granted seven monthly instalments to satisfy the entire dues as determined by the Industrial Tribunal. The said amount shall be deposited on or before 10th of each succeeding month, commencing from 10.09.2015, before the Industrial Tribunal. On deposit of each such instalment, the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. On satisfaction of the entire amounts, the Tribunal shall determine the future interest due from 31.08.2015 and the same shall be paid as the 8th instalment, on the next succeeding month. On satisfaction of the entire amounts, the same shall be recorded and proceedings finalised. The revenue recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance during the period of the instalments directed hereinabove. If any two consecutive defaults are committed by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 or the employer, the proceedings will revive and continue against the properties also. It is made clear that the daughter-in-law of the employer can be proceeded only against the properties which have been conveyed to her by the employer - her father-in-law. On satisfaction being recorded by the Tribunal, necessarily the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35005 of 2011 would be entitled to appear before the revenue recovery authorities, so as to seek lifting of the attachment of the properties. Ordered accordingly. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.