The Peermade Tea Company Limited vs Deputy Labour Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 11317 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.8951 OF 2021(T)


PETITIONER:

               THE PEERMADE TEA COMPANY LIMITED,
               TC-12/76 "SILVER OAKS", PMG - PLAMOODU ROAD,
               PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
               SRI.T.S. RAJAGOPAL.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
               SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
               SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
               KOTTAYAM - 695001.

      2        C.J. SELVARAJ,
               S/O. J. CHIRSTUDAS,
               OLD STATE BANK COLONY,
               MELARAMANPUTHUR, NAGARCOIL,
               TAMIL NADU - 629001.

      3        M. SATHEENDRANATHAN,
               MANGALAYIL HOUSE, CHAMBAD P.O,
               670694, THALASSERY.

      4        BABU MATHEW,
               S/O.P.C. MATHEW,
               PARANGOT HOUSE,
               NATTAKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686013.

      5        B.B. MUTHANNA,
               S/O. BITHAYYA,
               BETHU VILLAGE, NAPOKLU POST,
               NORTH KODAGU DISTRICT,
               KARNATAKA - 571214.

      6        K.N. UTHAIAH,
               S/O. NANJUNDA,
               BETHU VILLAGE, NAPOKLU POST,
               NORTH KODAGU DISTRICT,
 WP(C).No.8951 OF 2021

                                 2

               KARNATAKA - 571214.

       7       S. STARWIN,
               25/9, NOBLE 1ST STREET,
               ALANDUR, CHENNAI - 600016.

       8       RAM KUMAR,
               S/O. N. GOVINDAMENON,
               SATHYASADAN, THAZHAPRA,
               VETTIKATIRI P.O,
               VIA CHERUTHURUTHY - 679531.

       9       MADHUKUMAR K.B.,
               S/O. BALACHANDRAN PILLAI,
               HARICHITHRA HOUSE,
               T.P. PUROM P.O, KOTTAYAM - 1.

       10      STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - LABOUR,
               SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.


               R10 BY SMT. POOJA SURENDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.8951 OF 2021

                                          3




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 08th day of April 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner

drew my attention to the order at Exhibit P4 passed

by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972, under Section 7(4) of the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and there by referring

to the order at Exhibit P5 passed by the said

authority in another case, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the impugned order

at Exhibit P4 is illegal as the authority has

committed jurisdictional error while passing the

said order. It is submitted that the Controlling

Authority ought not to have granted gratuity to the

respondents for the period during which the tea

estate was defunct and there was no employment

therein from November 2000. This according to the

learned counsel for the petitioner is a

jurisdictional error and therefore the writ petition

can be entertained.

WP(C).No.8951 OF 2021

2. Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972, prescribes remedy of appeal for challenging

the order passed under Section 7 (4) of the Payment

of Gratuity Act, 1972, by the Controlling Authority.

The question whether the tea estate was functioning

or not and whether during the period in which the

tea estate was not operating, whether the

respondents were in employment or not are all

questions of facts and therefore it cannot be said

that the impugned order suffers from error of

jurisdiction.

As the petitioner has alternate and most

efficacious statutory remedy of appeal challenging

the impugned order , the petition as framed and

filed is not maintainable and the same is

accordingly dismissed. Needless to mention that the

petitioner can avail the alternate remedy if he is

so adviced, according to the provision of law.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE SSK/08/04 WP(C).No.8951 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

TRUE COPY OF THE CONCILIATION SETTLEMENT DATED 30.09.2013 HELD BY THE MANAGEMENT AND EXHIBIT P1 THE WORKERS/UNIONS BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 2014 BY THE 2ND EXHIBIT P2(A) RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO. 55/2010.

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 2014 BY THE 3RD EXHIBIT P2(B) RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO. 56/2010.

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 2014 BY THE 4TH EXHIBIT P2(C) RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO. 57/2010.

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 2014 BY THE 5TH EXHIBIT P2(D) RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO. 58/2010.

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 2014 BY THE 6TH EXHIBIT P2(E) RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO. 59/2010.

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 2014 BY THE 7TH EXHIBIT P2(F) RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO. 60/2010.

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 2014 BY THE 8TH EXHIBIT P2(G) RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO. 61/2010.

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 2014 BY THE 9TH EXHIBIT P2(H) RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO. 62/2010.

WP(C).No.8951 OF 2021

TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED EXHIBIT P3 10-01-2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO.55 OF 2014.

TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 28.12.2019 EXHIBIT P4 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2016 EXHIBIT P5 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO.63 OF 2010.

TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED EXHIBIT P6 12/11/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN G.C. NO. 55 OF 2014.

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GC-55/14 DATED 29.12.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P7 G.C NO. 55/2014 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. GC.55/14 DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST EXHIBIT P8(A) RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. GC.56/14 DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST EXHIBIT P8(B) RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH COPY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. GC.58/14 DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST EXHIBIT P8(C) RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH COPY TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. GC.59/14 DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST EXHIBIT P8(D) RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH COPY TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. GC.60/14 DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST EXHIBIT P8(E) RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH COPY TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. GC.61/14 DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST EXHIBIT P8(F) RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH COPY TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT.

WP(C).No.8951 OF 2021

TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. GC.62/14 DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST EXHIBIT P8(G) RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH COPY TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE