Kamala Bakery vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 16798 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 16333 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
    1     KAMALA BAKERY
          A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS,
          KACHERIPPADY, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN-683513
          (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI.GOVINDA RAJ
          K.N.).

     2       SANTHARAM @ BABY,
             PARTNER, KAMALA BAKERY, KACHERIPPADY, NORTH
             PARAVUR, PIN-683513.

             BY ADVS.
             T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
             KEERTHI.S.NAIR


RESPONDENTS:
    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
          REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM-01.

     2       DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

     3       DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
             NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, PIN-683513.

     4       DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
             ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030. (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
             UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972).

     5       V.G.RAJAPPAN,
             KALATHIL HOUSE, KARIMALIL, MANAKKAPPADY,
             KARUMALLOOR POST, PIN-683611.

             SMT. SABEENA P ISMAIL - GP


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   11.08.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.16333 OF 2021               2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners are before this Court impugning

Ext.P9 order of the 4th respondent - Controlling

Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The petitioners say that, as is evident from

Ext.P9, their application filed before the said

Authority, namely Ext.P7, has been rejected merely

saying that there is a defect in its cause title.

The petitioners assert that there is no such defect

in Ext.P7 and that Ext.P9 has been issued even

without affording them an opportunity of

explaining.

2. I have heard Shri.T.M.Raman Kartha, learned

counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Sabeena

P.Ismail, learned Government Pleader appearing for

respondents 1 to 4. I do not propose to issue

notice to respondent No.5 because am of the view

that no prejudice will be caused to him in view of

the directions that I propose to issue in this

judgment.

3. The learned Government Pleader submitted

that Ext.P9 has been issued by the 4th respondent

because, in spite of opportunities being given to

the petitioners, they did not correct the cause

title of Ext.P7. She, therefore, prayed that this

writ petition be dismissed.

4. Even when I hear the learned Government

Pleader as afore, when one examines Ext.P9, it is

rendered clear that no opportunity was ever given

to the petitioners - at least it has not been

recorded therein - to cure the alleged defects in

the cause title of Ext.P7. This is pertinent

because the petitioners assert that there is no

such defect and that, had they be given an

opportunity to explain, they could have convinced

the 4th respondent Authority that the cause title of

Ext.P7 is not defective.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ

petition and set aside Ext.P9; with a consequential

direction to the 4th respondent to afford an

opportunity to the petitioners to explain if the

cause title of Ext.P7 is defective and if so, to

give them a further opportunity of curing the same

as per law, leading to it being considered on

merits, including on the question of its

maintainability.

Needless to say, if the cause title of Ext.P7

is found to be not defective, leading to it being

heard on merits - including on the question of its

maintainability, the 5th respondent shall be

properly notified by the 4th respondent and his

version appositely assessed.

At this time, the learned counsel for the

petitioners interjected to pray that Ext.P5 notice

of demand be kept in abeyance. Since I have not

issued notice to the 5th respondent, it would not be

proper for this Court to accede to this request,

unless the petitioners deposit a substantial

portion of the demanded sum. Therefore, if the

petitioners deposit an amount equal to half of the

demand now made against them, before the 4th

respondent Controlling Authority within a period of

10 days from today, further action based on Ext.P5

shall stand deferred until further orders are

issued by the 4th respondent Controlling Authority.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/11.8

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16333/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 30.3.2016 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF STATUTORY LICENSE ISSUED FROM NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY DATED 22.5.2020.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF STATUTORY LICENSE ISSUED FROM FSSAI DATED 5.10.2020.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE RRC NO.2020/6967/07 DATED 29.12.2020.

Exhibit TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD P5(A) RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2020.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.4.2019 UNDER S.7(4) (B) OF PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, IN G.C.NO.343/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit TRUE COPY OF MODIFIED ORDER DATED 28.10.2019 P6(A) ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IN G.C.NO.343/2018 TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 (4TH RESPONDENT) DATED 23.2.2021.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF PETITION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN G.C.NO.343/2018 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.2.2021.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 4.5.2021 DISMISSING EXT. P7 AND P8.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10.6.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.