The Kerala Shipping And Inland ... vs Controlling Authority Under The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11250 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 38082 OF 2015
PETITIONER:

            THE KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION
            CORPORATION
            38/924 A UDAYA NAGAR ROAD,
            GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682020
            REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY.
            BY ADV SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,KINCO


RESPONDENTS:

    1       CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMET OF
            GRATUITY ACT
            (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER),
            ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION,
            KAKKANAD, KOCHI.-682020
    2       MOHAN P.M.
            PATTANAYIL MADOM, HOUSE NO.67/142,
            KURUPPAMCHIRA ROAD, NEAR DETHATHREYA TEMPLE,
            ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-20.




              BY SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL - SR.GP



     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   02.12.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No. 38082 of 2013
                                       2




                       MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,J
                                ------------
                        WP(C)No. 38082 of 2013
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----
                 Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2022

                                 JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 and also Exts.P7

and P9 and for declaration that the second respondent is not

entitled to get any amount as gratuity other than what was offered

by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,37,860/- to the

second respondent calculating that gratuity payable to him. The

petitioner submits that the second respondent had filed an

application, Ext.P1 before the controlling authority under the

Payment of Gratuity Act after his superannuation on 31.07.2007

showing the date of his appointment as 10.01.1981 and showing

the last drawn basic pay as Rs.6328/-. The petitioner contended

before the authority that the second respondent was only a casual

employee and denied having worked with the company from

10.01.1981. It was also alleged that the second respondent had

left the service of the petitioner on 31.07.2007 and the claim was

submitted after the delay of more than 65 months. WP(C)No. 38082 of 2013

3. The controlling authority after consideration of the

claims, by Ext.P5 order, found that the second respondent was

appointed in the petitioner establishment on 10.01.1981 and had

superannuated on 31.07.2007 after completion of 26 years of

continuous service and that his last drawn salary was Rs.6328/-

per month. It also found that petitioner could not prove the

contention that the applicant was a casual employee who worked

on casual basis and also do not produce any documents to prove

that the employee was working less that 240 days every year. In

the absence of any attempt by the petitioner to produce the

statutory documents before the controlling authority, the claim for

gratuity put forth by the second respondent was upheld. By the

order impugned it found the second respondent to be entitled to

a gratuity of Rs.93,579/- with interest at 10% ,from the date on

which the gratuity amount fell on due till payment. The said

order is challenged by the writ petitioner on the ground that the

petitioner was not a regular employee as defined under the

Payment of Gratuity Act and that no evidence was adduced by him

to show that he has worked 240 days every year. The petitioner

questions the extra amount of Rs.21,506/- ordered to be given to

the second respondent as excess for the reasons mentioned.

4. Having considered the rival contentions and on WP(C)No. 38082 of 2013

perusing the impugned order of the controlling authority I find

that justified reasons are given in the order. The contentions made

on behalf of the petitioner could not to substantiate with any

statutory documents. The controlling authority cannot be faulted

for accepting the contentions of the second respondent. The order

of the controlling authority is upheld. The writ petition is

dismissed . There will be a further direction to the petitioner to

comply Ext.P5 order, it if has not been complied with so far

without any further delay.

The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above.

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,JUDGE

dlk 3.12.2022 WP(C)No. 38082 of 2013

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38082/2015

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER PROVISO TO RULE 10(III) OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY(KERALA) RULES, 1973 SUBMITTED BY R2. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 APPLICATION.

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY R2 TO EXT.P2 OBJECTION.

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY R2 IN GC 7/13.

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.25-4-14 IN GC 7/13 OF R1.

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT REQUISITION CUM BANK VOUCHER DT.2-8-14 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF R2. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D1 1714/14 DT.5-12-14 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE WRIT PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GC 7/13 DT.15-1-2015 ISSUED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER TO R1. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D1.1747/14 DT.20-5-15 ISSUED BY R1 WITHOUT ENCLOSURE. EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.19-10-15 ISSUED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER TO R1.

EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.19-10-15 ISSUED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER TO R1.