Kerala High Court
Mansoor.M vs Autokast Ltd on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 12684 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MANSOOR.M
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O C.A MOHAMMAD ALI, RESIDING AT SAJIN GARDENS, BEHIND
CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
BY ADVS.
P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
AUTOKAST LTD.
S.N. PURAM POST SALEM, STATE HIGHWAY 66, CHERTHALA
SOUTH, KERALA 688 530, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.LATHA ANAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12684 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner - an employee of the respondent State
Government undertaking, retired on attaining age of superannuation way
back on 30.11.2015. Duly sworn testimony of the petitioner shows that
the petitioner, till date has not received the following retiral dues from
his employer, ie, the respondent.
1. Leave Salary - Rs.5,71,432/-
2. Medical benefit - Rs.3200/-
3. Revisional Arrears - Rs.3,85,924/-
4. Dearness Allowance - Rs.1,867/-
Total - Rs.9,62,423/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty
Three only)
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has made atleast 3 representations, ie, Ext.P1 to P3, so also
another representation which is at Ext.P5, requesting the respondents to
disburse the retiral dues to the petitioner, but there is no response from
WP(C) NO. 12684 OF 2021
the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has no source of income after his retirement and he is
suffering from financial crunch in his old age. My attention was drawn to
the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.40772/2017 filed by another
employee of the respondent (Ext.P6), wherein, this Court has directed
the respondent to release the retiral dues within a period of six months
from the date of the judgment.
4. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that though gratuity was paid to the petitioner, it was paid belatedly,
thereby making the petitioner entitled for interest as per the provisions of
the Payment of Gratuity Act. The learned counsel for the respondent have
not disputed the fact that retiral benefits are not paid to the petitioner,
but he submits that the respondent-Corporation will be in a position to
release more dues of the petitioner within a period of six months. He
submits that because of financial constraints, and as the applications
made by the petitioner are under process, as yet no payments can be
effected.
5. I have considered the submissions so advanced. Averments
made in the petition in respect of retiral dues paid to the petitioner are
not disputed. The petitioner is not having benefit of pension, because his
WP(C) NO. 12684 OF 2021
service was not pensionable. The petitioner is entitled to the dues
mentioned in para 4 of the petition as a consideration for long service
rendered by him with the respondent - Corporation and not as a charity
by the respondents. The petitioner, because of his long service rendered
to the respondent Corporation has become entitled for leave salary,
revisional arrears, dearness allowance as well as medical benefits and
after his retirement, he ought to have been paid all those dues forthwith
by the respondent. The respondent is not justified in withholding the
retiral dues of the petitioner on the ground of financial constraint. Action
of the respondent as such cannot be justified. It is seen from the duly
sworn testimony of the petitioner that the petitioner had retired services
of the respondent long back on 30.11.2015 and his retiral dues are still
pending. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has certainly become
entitled for interest at the rate of atleast 6% per annum on his retiral
dues which remained pending with the respondent till date.
Therefore, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent
to release all the retiral dues of the petitioner as early as possible and in
any case within a period of six months from the date of this judgment,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled for interest on
belated payment of gratuity. If that is so, the petitioner may approach
WP(C) NO. 12684 OF 2021
the concerned authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for realizing
the said dues.
Nsd sd/-
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 12684 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12684/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
29.11.2016 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
8.12.2016 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.12.2016 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
9.9.2017 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.8.2017 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO
40772/2017 DATED 20.12.2019
//true copy//
PA to Judge
