Vijayan.P vs Muthunni
2021 Latest Caselaw 13788 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
                         ND
         FRIDAY, THE 2        DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
                      CON.CASE(C) NO. 942 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25829/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:

     1      VIJAYAN.P
            AGED 61 YEARS
            S/O PADMANABHAN, SREE SREE VILLA, KURUMANDAL PARAVOOR,
            KOLLAM-691 301.

     2      SIVAPRASAD K,
            AGED 61 YEARS
            S/O KESHAVAN, EZHIKKAZHIKAM, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR,
            KOLLAM691 301.

     3      SOMARAJAN B.T.
            AGED 61 YEARS
            S/O BHASKARAN, EACHARA VILA, KOTTAPPURAM, SOUTH PARAVUR,
            KOLLAM-691 301.

            BY ADVS.
            SADCHITH.P.KURUP
            C.P.ANIL RAJ



RESPONDENT/S:

            MUTHUNNI
            AGED 55 YEARS
            S/O ABDUL KARIM, NOW WORKING AS SECRETARY, PARAVUR SNV
            REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO 1685, PARAVUR
            P.O.KOLLAM-691 301.

            BY ADV B.SURESH KUMAR


     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 942 OF 2021
                                   2



                              JUDGMENT

The contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of

the directions contained in the order pertaining to the payment of the

gratuity. The respondents have assigned a reason, vide Annexure

A2, that the employee had retired before 29.3.2018 whereby the

gratuity amount was fixed as 10 lakhs, the increase of 20 lakhs was

only after 29.3.2018. The amount of gratuity of Rs.10 lakhs had

already been paid to the petitioner.

I am of the view that the decision now passed is required to be

gone into by the authority under the payment of gratuity Act or any

other remedy but not in the manner and mode ie., the contempt. No

ground for contempt is made out. Accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

sab                                           AMIT RAWAL
                                                  JUDGE

CON.CASE(C) NO. 942 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 942/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure A1 COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.6.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO FIRST PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Annexure A2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.6.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Annexure A3 COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.6.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Annexure A4 COPY OF FULL BENCH DECISION DATED 18.9.2017 REPORTED IN 2017 (40 KLT

Annexure A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2020 PASSED IN WPC NO 25829/2019

Annexure A6 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED M16.2.2021 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS