Pa Joseph Stanley vs Deputy Labour Commissioner

Kerala High Court

Pa Joseph Stanley vs Deputy Labour Commissioner on 20 May, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
                                  &
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
        MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                         WA NO. 659 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.4.2024 IN WP(C) NO.16698 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :

            PA JOSEPH STANLEY,
            AGED 78 YEARS
            S/O. PUTHENPURAKKEL ANDREW, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAKKAL
            HOUSE, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682002,
            MANAGING PARTNER OF CEE CEE INDIA, SANIDHI ROAD,
            RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016
            BY ADVS.
            M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR
            A.N.JYOTHILEKSHMI
            LAKSHMI S KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

    1       DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
            CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT AND
            GRATUITY ACT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUT
            COMMISSIONER, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030
    2       K.J PETER,
            S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KANDANAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            CKP MURALI ROAD, EZHUPUNNA, ERAMALLOOR,
            ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688537
            SR GP SRI T K VIPINDAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A. No.659 of 2024                  2




                AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S. , JJ.
                       -------------------------
                       W.A. No.659 of 2024
                  -----------------------------------
               Dated this the 20th day of May 2024

                               JUDGMENT

AMIT RAWAL, J.

The present Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Bench whereby the petitioner has been relegated to file an appeal against the order Ext.P8 dated 6.3.2024 passed in G.C. No.143 of 2022.

2. Succinctly the facts in brief are as follows:

The petitioner is the managing partner of M/s Cee Cee India whereas the 2nd respondent K.J.Peter had filed a claim petition aforementioned on October, 2021 claiming arrears of wages and gratuity. The aforementioned claim petition was though dismissed but restored on the file on the application of restoration submitted by the 2 nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner before the Deputy Labour Commissioner was that the notices of the claim petitions were sent at W.A. No.659 of 2024 3 the address of the establishment and not at the residential address whereas the establishment by that time had already been closed and such intimation had already been given. In the meantime the claim petition was allowed. The Review Petition Ext.P6 dated 28.11.2023 is stated to be pending. This Court on 20.12.2023 disposed of the writ petition directing the Deputy Labour Commissioner to decide the review petition in accordance with law.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order Ext.P8 has been passed on 6.03.2024 without giving any notice and thus, there had not been any compliance of the judgment of this Court.

4. On the other hand, Sri.Vipin Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that counsel for the petitioner had appeared on 06.03.2024 in pursuance to the notice sent for hearing of the review petition. Therefore the plea of non granting of the opportunity of hearing is not sustainable.

5. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and appraised the paper book. We are of the view that after ascertaining information from the learned Government Pleader that the counsel W.A. No.659 of 2024 4 representing the review petitioner when appeared before the authority submitted an affidavit that he could not attend the hearing when the matter was listed but owing to certain difficulties. The Deputy Labour Commissioner ought not to have been so rigid and fastidious in deciding the application in undue haste but by giving a chance to the petitioner to assail the order allowing the claim.

6. It is further contended that this Court had earlier also interfered in the writ court against the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner without relegating the remedy of appeal. The learned Single Bench ought not to have relegated the petitioner as the conditions bypassing the remedy do not exist. We are of the view that the appellant should not have been relegated to alternate remedy as it is a clear case of violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. Accordingly we set aside the order Ext.P8 dated 06.3.2024, restore the review petition Ext.P6 and relegate the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to decide the review petition in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. We make it clear that the appellant should be vigilant in appearing before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Let the matter be decided within a period of two months W.A. No.659 of 2024 5 from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the application dated 7.3.2024 seeking review of the order of 6.3.2024.

Appeal stands disposed off.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/-

EASWARAN S., JUDGE NS