IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6 DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 21558 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
M/S. MALABAR EYE HOSPITAL
AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD., ERANHIPALAM,
KOZHIKODE - PIN 673006
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANAND, SR.
LATHA ANAND
M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON
K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR
S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)
RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI B
SIDHARTH P.S.
GOVIND P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHEEJA A K @SHEEJA VISWANATH
D/O A.M. KUNHIRAMAN, NAROKUNNUMMAL (H),
MENHANNIAM (PO), PERAMBRA, KOZHIKKODE - 673525
2 NIRUPAMA RAVI SANKAR,
D/O RAVI SANKAR, KRISH VIHAR, CHULLIYODE ROAD,
NEAR LAL STORES, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
KOZHIKODE - 673020
3 DR. TRESA T. MATHEW,
W/O KURIAKOSE, A5 QUARTERS,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673008
4 CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER), KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION P.O.,
KOZHIKODE - 673020
SRI V K SUNIL, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.21558/2022 2
JUDGMENT
Ext.P11 proceedings dated 18.1.2022 of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 delinking the joint trial has been assailed in the present petition on behalf of the management.
2. The petitioner management is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is alleged to have selected and engaged respondent Nos.1 to 3 as Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeons and were being paid remuneration on the basis of consultation and surgeries done each day with a specific understanding that they will be engaged as per the requirement. At the instance of one Dr.Chandrakanth, respondents 1 to 3 have submitted applications before the fourth respondent - Controlling Authority for payment of the Gratuity, which were numbered as G.C.78, 79 and 87 of 2018. On completion of the pleadings, the applicant in G.C.No.78 of 2018 submitted an application dated 30.3.2021 for trying all the three gratuity cases together. After considering the application, the Controlling Authority vide order dated 31.3.2021 Ext.P8 accepted the aforementioned request.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Anand assisting the counsel WP(C) No.21558/2022 3 on behalf of the petitioner submitted that after having gone through the evidence rendered in the case and the cross examination, claimants have certainly taken a volte-face by submitting applications for segregating the trial of all the cases for the reason that certain answers in the cross examination prima facie are against the applicants in the claim petitions. The said request was objected to by filing a chief affidavit and the additional chief affidavit, but the respondent has delinked the trial. It is on the request of the applicants, the trial of all the cases was clubbed and to be decided together, but at the whims and fancies cannot be delinked, that too, at the stage when one of the claimant was cross examined and certain admissions surfaced. Therefore the order under challenge is wholly untenable and impermissible much less perverse.
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force or merit.
5. On perusal of the cross examination, it is revealed that much emphasis has been laid on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the admission qua relationship of the employer and employee that there was no relationship. But, the said statement has been qualified by later statement, in the case of the claimant WP(C) No.21558/2022 4 there was a relationship of the employer. In my view the joint trial in all the cases ought not to have been conducted at the request of the claimants, but the wisdom dawned as each and independent case of all the claimants claiming gratuity is to be examined on preponderance of the evidence and the material on record. The order segregating the trial in my view cannot be adverse to the interest of the management and they will be at liberty to cross all the claimants in the individual cases. No ground for interference is made out.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE csl WP(C) No.21558/2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21558/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE L' RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2018 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.06.2019 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2018 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 27.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2018 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.06.2019 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30.03.2021 FILED BY THE 1ª RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY DATED 31.03.2021 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN LIEU OF CHIEF EXAMINATION ON 20.04.2021 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE IN CROSS EXAMINATION WITH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY DATED 18.01.2022 DELINKING THE JOINT TRIAL WP(C) No.21558/2022 6 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE IA DATED 21.03.2022 TO REVIEW THE ORDER DELINKING THE JOINT TRIAL. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT CONTROLLING AUTHORITY ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
NIL