Joy vs Deputy Labour Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 6048 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

                        WP(C).No.4361 OF 2021(U)


PETITIONER/S:

                JOY, AGED 64 YEARS,
                S/O.ANTONY, IDUTHAN HOUSE, ST THERESA'S TILES
                THALORE, THRISSUR 680 306

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.V.V.JOY
                SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
                DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, THRISSUR 686 001.

      2         PUSHPA M.K.,
                AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
                MEPPURATH HOUSE, PARAKKAD,
                KALLUR P.O., THRISSUR 680 317



                R1 BY GP- SMT. POOJA SURENDRAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4361 OF 2021

                                           2




                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of February 2021

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader

appearing for the 1st respondent.

2. The petition for determination of the amount

of gratuity filed by the 2nd respondent was allowed by

the 1st respondent controlling authority under the

Payment of Gratuity Act. Initially the petitioner

appeared before that authority, but subsequently, the

petitioner remained absent and that is how the

impugned order was passed without hearing the

petitioner by the said authority. The petitioner

then filed an application for setting aside the

ex-parte order. The said application was also

rejected by the communication at Ext.P2.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that, the impugned order is illegal and

arbitrary as no opportunity of hearing was granted to WP(C).No.4361 OF 2021

the petitioner. The petitioner opt to have been

given fresh chance by considering the effect of

Covid-19 pandemic.

4. The impugned order passed by the controlling

authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is an

appellate order as prescribed by Section 7 of Payment

of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, this is not a fit case

to exercise jurisdiction by this Court.

The petition is accordingly dismissed, with

liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate

authority, if he is advised so.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

uu

19.2.2021 WP(C).No.4361 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.9.2020 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.12.2020 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.