Noushad.A vs Santha B

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14803 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

Noushad.A vs Santha B on 4 June, 2024

Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
        TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 22021 OF 2013
PETITIONER:

            NOUSHAD.A
            A.S.CASHEW EXPORTS, AMBALATHUMKALA,KOLLAM - 691 505.
            BY ADV Mohan Lal B


RESPONDENTS:

    1       SANTHA B.
            "SANTHOSH BHAVAN", ANAKOTTOR P.O., VENMANNOOR,KOLLAM -
            691 505.
    2       VENUGOPALAN
            PROP.KARUNA CASHEW COMPANY, AMBALATHUMKALA,KOLLAM - 691
            505.
    3       THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
            ACT
            (REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KOLLAM - 691 001.
    4       CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
            (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER), KOLLAM - 691 001.
            BY ADVS.
            R.SURAJ KUMAR
            SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
            N.G.SINDHU
            ANJANA R.S.


            SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY-GP



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).26023/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)Nos.22021 of 2013 & 26023 of 2014
                                           2



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
      TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                           WP(C) NO. 26023 OF 2014
PETITIONER:

              SANTHA B
              W/O.GOPI, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, VENMANNOOR, ANAKOTTOOR
              P.O., NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM
              DISTRICT.
              BY ADVS.
              R.SURAJ KUMAR
              SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
              N.G.SINDHU
              ANJANA R.S.


RESPONDENTS:

      1       NOUSHAD A
              A.S.CASHEW EXPORTS, AMBALATHUMKALA, KOLLAM - 691 505.
      2       VENUGOPALAN
              PROPRIETOR, KARUNA CASHEW COMPANY, AMBALATHUMKALA,
              KOLLAM - 691 505.
      3       THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
              UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, (REGIONAL LABOUR
              COMMISSIONER), KOLLAM - 691 001.
      4       CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
              UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, (REGIONAL LABOUR
              OFFICER), KOLLAM - 691 001.
              BY ADV Mohan Lal B
              SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY-GP



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).22021/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)Nos.22021 of 2013 & 26023 of 2014
                                            3




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of June, 2024 These two writ petitions have been field by the management and the employee impugning the very same order dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in G.A No.15/2012.

2. The employee had rendered 37 years of continuous service in the A.S Cashew Exports and after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, she raised a claim before the Controlling Authority in G.C No.37/2009. After examining the evidence, the Controlling Authority fixed Rs. 213.27/- as average daily wages received by the employee and calculated the Gratuity for 37 years.

3. Against the said order of the Controlling Authority, the management filed an appeal as G.A W.P.(C)Nos.22021 of 2013 & 26023 of 2014 4 No.15 of 2012 before the Appellate Authority.

4. The Appellate Authority examined the record of the Controlling Authority as well as evidence. After examining the deposition of the employee that she was getting an amount of Rs.500/- to Rs.800/- per week, which would show that she was getting an average amount of Rs.650/- per week. Hence the average wages would come Rs.2,600/- per month ie.,Rs.100/- per day. It was also said that the minimum wages fixed at that time were around Rs.100/- and therefore, considering the average wages of Rs.100/- per day, the Appellate Authority modified the order passed by the Controlling Authority and an amount of Rs.55,500/- was found to be payable to the employee along with interest at the rate of 10% from the date on which the gratuity becomes due and payable ie., w.e.f. 28.12.2002.

5. The learned counsel for the employee submits that the Controlling Authority examined the Form N W.P.(C)Nos.22021 of 2013 & 26023 of 2014 5 submitted by the employer and on that basis, the Controlling Authority calculated the gratuity. The Appellate Authority has discarded the evidence produced before the Controlling Authority and has calculated the gratuity on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the Government. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable. However, learned counsel on behalf of the employer submits that the employee had received some gratuity which has not been deducted from the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.

6. I have considered the submissions and perused two orders passed by the authorities.

7. The Appellate Authority had considered the evidence led before the Controlling Authority including the deposition of the employee, wherein her wages varied from Rs.500/- to Rs.800/- per week. Therefore, the average wage of the employee has W.P.(C)Nos.22021 of 2013 & 26023 of 2014 6 been considered to Rs.650/- per week. This would come to Rs.2,600/- per month, which is lower than minimum wages fixed by the government, which was Rs.100/- per day.

In fact, the Appellate Authority has taken the minimum wages as the wages of the employee is less than minimum wages and calculated the gratuity to be paid. This Court finds no error of law or jurisdiction in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition lacks any merits and substance, which is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP W.P.(C)Nos.22021 of 2013 & 26023 of 2014 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22021/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 27.11.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 29.11.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.7.2012 EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED IN NOVEMBER 2012.

EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.5.2013 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 17.8.2013. W.P.(C)Nos.22021 of 2013 & 26023 of 2014 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26023/2014 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P-1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P-3:            A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CARD ISSUED
                    FROM    THE    REGIONAL   CANCER    CENTRE,
                    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.