WP(C) No. 11415 of 2011 & Conn. Cases; WP(C) No. 7400 of 2014; WP(C) No. 24451 of 2020

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 C.KUTTAN AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHITHRA,, PARUTHICHAKONAM, BALARAMAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM-695501.** - **2 P.JOHN, S/O.S.PETER, AGED 59 YEARS RESIDING AT KAVINAL, TC 10/1684,(1),CKRA 117, CHENNACHERRY, KURAUMKULAM ROAD, NALAMCHIRA POST,, TRIVANDRUM-695515.** - **3 C.K.ANANDAKRISHNAN, S/O.C.K.KUTTAPPAN AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC 26/1665, HARINIVAS,, UNNI'S LANE, PLAMMOD, TRIVANDRUM.** - **4 Y.SOMARAJAN, S/O.JESUDASAN AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT THONGALVILA VEEDU,, NELIMMOD POST, TRIVANDRUM-695524.** - **5 C.KUTTAPPAN, S/O.R.CHELLAYAN NADAR AGED 60 YEARS, SREEBHAVAN, KOTTUKAL, NELLIMMOD, TRIVANDRUM-695524.** - **6 A.SREENARAYANAN, S/O.P.ARUMUGHAN PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C.39/1909, ANIL BHAVAN, SREEPURAM ROAD, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **7 SALIMUNNISA.M., S/O.M.A.RAWOF AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC 25/1036(1),, ETRA-173, THYKKAD POST, TRIVANDRUM.** - **8 PYARIJAN, S/O.MOHAMMED SALI AGED 59 YEARS, MEDAYIL HOUSE, TC 48/459(1),, MANAKKAUD POST, TRIVANDRUM.** - **9 G.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.R.GOPALAN AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEMMANNUVILA VEED,, KARAKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM, TRIVANDRUM.** - **10 E.V.PARAMESWARAN S/O.E.P.VASUDEVAN NAMBUTHIRI, RESIDING AT, ELAYADATH HOUSE, SOUTH AMBALLOOR POST, KANJIRAMATTAM, ERNAKULAM- 682315.** - **11 K.HARIDAS, S/O.KRISHNAN M.K. AGED 61 YEARS, MUNDODIYHARAYIL,, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM POST VAIKOM.** **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **2** - **12 P.B.JOSEPH, S/O.P.C.BENJAMIN AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARADU,, MIDAYATHUMAN POST, THALAYOLAPARAMBU.** - **13 C.K.NARAYANAN NAIR,S/O.C.K.KRISHNAN NAIR AGED 61 YEARS, CHIRAKKALKUNNIL HOUSE, MEENADUM POST, KOTTAYAM-686516.** - **14 SNEHAPRABHA, D/O.SUNDER JAYAKUMAR AGED 59 YEARS, WOOD CREAK, COUNTRY NO.29,, CHASE 2, 2ND MAIN ROAD, ST.THOMAS MOUNT, CHENNAI.** - **15 A.THAHAKUTTY, S/O.ASSANARUKUNJU AGED 59 YEARS, RSIDING AT NO.31/20B2, AMBELIPADAM ROAD, VYTTILA POST, ERNAKULAM.** - **16 K.KUNJABDULLA, S/O.KALANDU MUSLIYAR AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUBARAK MANZIL,, PAYYOLI POST, KOZHIKODE.** - **17 A.RAJENDRABABU, S/O.APPUKUTTAN PILLAI RESIDING AT THATHWAMASI, VADUKKAMTHALA POST,, KOLLAM-690536.** - **18 K.CHITHIRANJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN.R. AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHITHIRA,, VELIYAM WEST POST, KOTTARAKKARA.** - **19 S.VISWANADA IYYER, S/O.SUBRAMANIYA IYYER AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC 23/751, VYASA 134,, VALIYACHALA STREET, TRIVANDRUM-695036.** - **20 N.MURALEEDHARA THAMPI S/O.V.NARAYANAN THAMPI, AGED 59 YEARS,, RESIDING AT TC 38/3059(1), NERA THAMIL HIGH, SCHOOL CHALI, TRIVANDRUM-695036.** - **21 K.S.RAJENDRAN, S/O.S.SUKUMARAN AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARCHANA, NEAR LPBS,, EANIKKARA, KARAKULAM POST, TRIVANDRUM.** - **22 J.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.JANARDHANAKURUP AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT PRETHEWSHA,, KURUP LANE, K.4, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM.** **BY ADV SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH** **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** ## **3** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (C) DEPARTMENT,, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2 KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,, KANNUR-670001. 3 CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR-670001. 4 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, KANNUR 670001. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7400/2014, 24451/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **4** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 7400 OF 2014** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 ABDUL HAKKIM SHERIF S/O.U.P.MAHIN, FLAT NO.7B, BLOCK 1, KANNUR HEIGHTS, ARAT ROAD,KANNUR 670 001.Q 2 M.G.SREEKUMARAN NAIR AGED 60 YEARS S/O.K.P.GOPALAPILLAI, MUTHALAKUZHIYIL(VAISHNAVAM), PO PLASSANAL, KOTTAYAM 686 579. 3 AMMINI.P.K AGED 58 YEARS D/O.KRISHNAN.P.I, SOPANAM, DEVI RESIDENTS ASSOCIZATIONM KESAZVADASAPURAM, PATTAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 4 ANANDAKUTTAN.R AGED 58 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRANATHAN.K, KANDISERIL, MUTTOM PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 511. 5 P.U.OUSEPH S/O.P.K.VARKEY, PUNNACKAL HOUSE, MARUTHORVATTOM PO, CHERTHALA, ALLEPEY,688 545. 6 V.M.IBRAHIM ADHAM AGED 60 YEARS S/O.V.M.MOHAMMED, INDEEVARAM, VIKAS NAGAR, KUNDANNOOR, PO MARADU, ERNAKULAM 682 304. 7 P.K.RAMESH AGED 60 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN NAMBIAR, THUMB, NEAR SASTHAMKOTTAM TEMPLE,CHIRAKKAL , KANNUR 670 011** - **8 P.S.MANI AGED 59 YEARS** **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **5** **S/O.PADAKAPILLAI ACHARI,VASANTHAM, PNRA-72, PALACE ROAD, ATTINGAL 695 101.** **9 RAVEENDRAN NAIR.V AGED 59 YEARS S/O.P.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, SURABHI, P.49-PRIYADARSINI NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, TRIVANDRUM 695 011.** **10 D.SUKU AGED 59 YEARS S/O.V.DAMODARA PANICKER, PADMAVILASAM, RUSSERLPURAM PO, BALARAMAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM 695 501.** **11 K.SURENDRAN AGED 59 YEARS S/O.KUTTAN NADAR, ASHWATHIBHAVAN, THACHOTTUKAVU, MAKAYINKEEZHU PO, TRIVANDRUM 695 571.** **BY ADV SRI.TITUS MANI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., PM 32/249, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR 670 001.** **BY ADVS. BY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE -G.P SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11415/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **6** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 24451 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** **K. CHANDRAN, (REGIONAL MANAGER RTD., HANDWEEV) AGED 70 YEARS SAYOOJYAM, POST MAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-670 611.** ## **BY ADV RAJAN P.KALIYATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001.** - **2 KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KANNUR-670 001.** - **3 CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR-670 001.** - **4 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR-670 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN** **SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11415/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **7** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners in these cases are stated to have retired from the services of the “Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd” (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hanveev **'** for short). According to them, though the Government had been issuing periodic orders for enhancement of the applicable Dearness Allowance (DA) from the year 2004 onwards, the 'Hanveev **'** had been postponing the grant of the same to its employees, citing the reason that they had no sufficient financial resources to honour it. 2. The petitioners say that the afore stand of the 'Hanveev **'** was completely untenable because, as per Ext.P12 information that they have received from its Chief Information Officer itself, it is clear that the provision for an amount of Rs.98,27,330/- had been made by it for honouring the amount of DA to their employees between the year 2004 to 2008; and consequently, that they cannot be heard to say that they will not pay DA at the time when it was ordered by the Government. They therefore, pray that the 'Hanveev **'** be directed to pay them the arrears of DA from 01.01.2004, till the date of retirement of each of them, along with **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** ## **8** interest. 3. I have heard Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.11415/2011 and 24451/2020; Sri.Benny P. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7400/2014; Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 'Hanveev **'** and the learned Government Pleader - Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, appearing for the official respondents. 4. The controversy in these cases fall in a very narrow compass - namely, whether the 'Hanveev **'** had requisite financial capacity to pay the amounts of DA at the time when the Government issued the respective orders. The corollary question is whether, if it is found that they did not have such resources, whether they were obligated to approach the Government seeking support for this purpose, as is required under the provisions of the Government Order bearing number G.O.(P)No.120/2007/Fin. dated 20.03.2007 - a copy of which is on record as Ext.P11 in W.P. (C)No.11415/2011. The latter issue above is relevant because, the petitioners assert that, as per Clause 5(iii) of the afore said Government Order, if an Organization is unable to garner **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **9** resources for payment of the enhanced DA, they are obligated to approach the Government for such, but that, in these cases, the 'Hanveev **'** has refused to do so, thus depriving them of their valuable benefits. 5. I notice from the counter pleadings on record that the Government takes a stand that, normally, their orders announcing DA is to be honoured by the Public Sector Undertakings, provided they have sufficient financial capacity. They, however, then maintain that the 'Hanveev **'** is running on “heavy loss”. They say that when the company was thus suffering loss, the usual and accepted practice is to adopt the Government Orders sanctioning the enhanced DA with prospective effect and therefore, that no arrears can be granted to the petitioners. It then avers that the Government approves the action of the 'Hanveev **'** in postponing the DA to subsequent dates and thus asserts that the petitioners cannot seek any relief in these writ petitions. 6. The learned Government added to the above arguing that petitioners were well aware of these facts, but they have still chosen to approach this Court much belatedly, after they retired, seeking benefits of DA from the year 2004. He thus contended that **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **10** they cannot be now granted any relief in these writ petitions, particularly because they did not make any such claim while they were in service. 7. As far as the 'Hanveev **'** is concerned, they take the position that the Government has clarified that their orders will be made applicable to the Public Sector Undertakings only after it is ensured that they have sufficient financial capacity to pay the enhanced DA. They explain that the matter was thus placed before its Board of Directors and since it was found that it did not have sufficient funds to honour the escalated DA, it was decided to give the Government Orders prospective effect. They thus contend that there is no practice of giving retrospective effect to the Government Orders because it would attract heavy financial commitment and that the 'Hanveev **'** is not in a position to do so. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the 'Hanveev **',** referring to the averments in their counter pleadings, further explained that since the employee costs had been escalating over the years and since the accumulated loss of the Company assumed gigantic promotions to the extent of more than 63 Crores, its Board was compelled to take certain strict actions, including by **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **11** postponing the date of payment of DA and that this was done taking note of their financial position in accordance with the directions of the Government while sanctioning the revised DA to their employees. 9. The rival contentions of the parties being so recorded, I will now proceed to analyze them. 10. On the question of the financial capacity, as I have already said above, it is the specific case of petitioners - pointing out to Ext.P12 in W.P.(C)No.11415/2011 - that sufficient provisions had already been made by the 'Hanveev **'** for honouring the enhanced DA during the period from January 2004 to January 2009. 11. However, I notice that this aspect has not been specifically controverted by any of the respondents in their counter pleadings, presumably because this document was placed on record subsequent to the filing of these writ petitions. 12. As regards the question of delay, I notice that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, particularly that of Sri.Benny P. Thomas is that respondents cannot take refuge under such a plea, even assuming that there is such a delay, **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **12** because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphatically declared in **Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [2008(8) SCC 648]** that the grievance is a continuing one and therefore, that the same will not be barred by Limitation. Of course, I am also cognizant that the petitioner's specific contention is that there is no delay because they had approached this Court in the year 2011, soon after they retired from service; and that these matters have been pending ever since. 13. When I evaluate the afore submissions of the parties on the touchstone of the various materials on record, it is clear that the disputes between them are edificed on pure questions of fact, namely as to whether the Company had the financial capacity to pay the escalated DA as per the Government Orders at the time when they were issued. 14. On one hand, the 'Hanveev **'** asserts that they did not have such capacity; while on the other hand, the petitioners, relying on Ext.P12 in W.P.(C)No.11415/2011, argues to the contrary. 15. Obviously, therefore, this is a matter that cannot be resolved by this Court while acting under Article 226 of the **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **13** Constitution of India and am, therefore, certain that this will have to be properly considered by the competent Authority of the 'Hanveev **'** and thereafter by the Government, if it becomes so necessary, after hearing the representatives of the petitioners. 16. I am persuaded to this course because, even if the 'Hanveev **'** takes the stand that they had no fiscal capacity to pay the enhanced DA based on the Government Orders, then Ext.P11 Government Order in W.P.(C)No.11415/2011 indicates that they should have approached the Government for their sanction and for financial support; but in these cases, I do not see this having been done in any manner whatsoever. 17. I am, therefore, of the firm opinion that the entire matter will require to be reconsidered first by the 'Hanveev **'** and then by the Government, if it becomes so warranted. 18. In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of any of the dialectical contentions of the parties and leaving them all open to be pursued appropriately, I order these writ petitions and direct the competent Authority of the 'Hanveev **'** to hear the 1st petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.11415/2011 and W.P. (C)No.7400/2014, as also the petitioner in W.P(C)No.24451/2020 **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **14** and then conclude, through a proper proceedings, as to whether the Company had made sufficient provisions in their accounts for payment of escalated DA during the period between 2004 and 2010 and whether they had thus the financial capacity to honour the same. Once such proceedings are concluded and if it is still held by the 'Hanveev **'** that they did not have necessary financial capacity at the relevant times, then the matter will be referred by them to the appropriate Authority of the Government, who will thereafter consider the whole matter in the light of Ext.P11 Government Order and decide if any financial support or concurrence for payment of DA needs to be given to the 'Hanveev **'** from the dates on which the Government Orders operated or whether their action in having postponed the same was without fault. 19. The first among the afore exercise as ordered above, shall be completed by the 'Hanveev **'** not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and if they conclude that the Company did not have the financial resources to honour the escalated DA during the relevant period, then they will approach the Government within a period of one month thereafter; **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **15** in which event, Government will consider the matter in terms of my directions above within a further period of two months from the date on which such requisition is obtained from the 'Hanveev **'.** Needless to say, if the proceedings reach the Government as above, then will be at liberty to consider the mater independently and dispassionately on all issues, including as to whether there was any delay from the part of the petitioners in having approached the 'Hanveev'; however, with a caveat that if the Government is to find the claims to be belated, then they will do so only after adverting to **Tarsem Singh** (supra). **SD/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** rp **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **16** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11415/2011** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |**Exhibit P1**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(P) NO. 541/2005/FIN. DATED**| |---|---| ||**17/12/2005.**| |**Exhibit P2**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2008 OF THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P3**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2009 OF THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P4**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2009 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P5**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2010 OF THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P6**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/05/2010 OF THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P7**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/10/2010 BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P8**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/09/2009**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.**| |**Exhibit P9**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/02/2011**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.**| |**Exhibit P10**|**COPY OF ORDER DATED 10/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P11**|**THE COPY OF THE GO DATED 20/03/2007 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P12**|**THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/05/2011 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE CORPORATION.**| |**Exhibit P13**|**THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED**| ||**25/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| ## **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **17** **Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION. Exhibit P15 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION.** **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **18** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7400/2014** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 - COPY OF THE ACCOUNT CHART REFERRED TO IN THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11** **EXHIBIT P2 - COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 15354/2013 DATED 22/10/.2013** **EXHIBIT P3 - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 34676/2010 , WPC 37070/2010 AND WPC 7993/2011 DATED 16/11/2012.** **EXHIBIT P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.614/2012/FIN DATED 08.11.2012.** **- - RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE R2(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE TABLE SHOWING WAGES PAID TO THE WEAVERS, EMPLOYEES COST, LOSS INCURRED BY THE CORPORATION AND ACCUMULATED LOSS DURING 2003-2004.** **WP(C) NO. 11415 OF 2011 & CONN. CASES** **19** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24451/2020** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.541/2005/FIN DATED 17.12.2005. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G1/31/817/2008 DATED 19.09.2008. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G1/31/156/2009 DATED 06.0G5.2009. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G1/31/906/2009 DATED 24.10.2009. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G1/31/64/2010 DATED 08.04.2010. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES DATED 22.02.2011. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2012 IN WPC NO.7993/2011.**