Usha G.Philip vs The Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 8082 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.6018 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

               USHA G.PHILIP
               AGED 61 YEARS
               WIFE OF THOMAS MATHEW, RESIDING AT MADATHIPARAMBIL
               SHALEM HOUSE P.O., MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM-686 004.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
               SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE MANAGER, GIRIDEEPAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
               VADAVATHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 010.

      2        THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF
               GRATUITY ACT, (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM
               AT ETTUMANOOR), NEAR MAHADEVA TEMPLE,
               ETTUMANNOR-686 631.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN, GOVT. PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.6018/2021                   2


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of March 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner argued that after adducing evidence of

the petitioner before the Controlling Authority under the Payment

of Gratuity Act, the management has produced the documents

which are at Exts.P4 and P5. It is further argued that these

documents are photocopies of some documents and as such, are

not admissible in evidence. Therefore, according to the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the respondent-Controlling Authority be

directed to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Evidence Act

while admitting these documents in evidence.

2. It is trite that strict rule of evidence is not applicable to

the matters under the labour legislations. Before the quasi-

judicial authority, the petitioner cannot insist for applying

procedural rules prescribed under the Evidence Act. It is for the

petitioner to point out how these documents which are sought to

be produced on record are irrelevant or not having any bearing on

the issue involved in the litigation. It is pointed out that the

documents at Exts.P4 and P5 are placed on record by the

1st respondent only after the evidence of the petitioner is over.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of

with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to permit the petitioner to

recall the witnesses already examined and/or to call the new

witnesses summoned by the petitioner concerning the documents

at Exts.P4 and P5.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.855/2018 DATED 03.12.2018 (FROM N) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION DATED 14.11.2019 AGAINST THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF A PAGE OF THE ALLEGED ACQUAINTANCE REGISTER PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P3 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF GIRIDEEPAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (VEHICLE ACCOUNT) FR.KURIAKOSE ABRAHAM FROM THE SOUTH INDIA BANK LTD., KANJIKUZHI BRANCH PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P3 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16.02.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23.02.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp