The Manager (Hr) vs Controlling Authority Under The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1316 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.855 OF 2021(F)


PETITIONER:

               THE MANAGER (HR)
               M/S. KKR GROUP OF COMPANIES, OKKAL P.O., KALADY,
               ERNAKULAM-683 550.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
               SMT.TINY THOMAS
               SMT.BIJIMOL JOSE

RESPONDENTS:

      1        CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
               ACT, 1972/DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY,
               STATE ADVISORY CONTRACT LABOUR BOARD, PATTOOR PMG
               ROAD, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
               PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033

      2        HARIDAS N.G.
               S/O.K.GOVINDAN, NEDUMPALLIL HOUSE, RUBY NAGAR P.O.,
               CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 103.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. RON BASTIN, GOVT. PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.855/2021                 2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of January 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is

challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Controlling Authority under

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 thereby directing the petitioner

to pay an amount of Rs.1,55,480/- with simple interest of 10%

with effect from 15.04.2017 within 30 days of receipt of the order.

2. The petitioner has alternate and most efficacious remedy

of challenging the order passed on an application under

Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by virtue of provisions

of Section 7(7) of the said Act.

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed because of

availability of most efficacious and alternate statutory remedy.

However, it is clarified that if an appeal is filed by the petitioner

before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority shall

consider the pendency of this writ petition for condonation of delay

if any, in challenging the impugned order.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE No.G.C.124/17 DTD.16.11.17 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY R2 BEFORE R1 DTD.18.5.2017.

EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM No.N BEARING No.124/2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 DTD.3.11.2017.

EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DTD.8.10.2018.

EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF REPLICATION SUBMITTED BY R2 BEFORE R1 DTD.29.11.2018.

EXT.P6 : A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD.6.10.2020 IN G.C.No.124/2017 PASSED BY R1.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp