Kerala High Court
Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs Smt. Aayichakutty on 13 March, 2023
WP(C) No.8274/2023 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Monday, the 13th day of March 2023 / 22nd Phalguna, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8274 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED, AGED 38 YEARS FACTORY DIVISION,
ARAPATTA ESTATE, MEPPADI.PO, WAYANAD, PIN - 673577, REPRESENTED BY
ITS HEAD (LEGAL) - MR. SUMITH BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1. SMT. AAYICHAKUTTY, C/R. NO. 4096, W/O AVARAN, VELLUVAKKADANVEEDU,
MEPPADIP.O,WAYANAD , PIN - 673577
2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
(DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, WAYANAD, KALPETTA, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673112
3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
(REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER) ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673020
Writ Petition (Civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 and P5
orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents pending disposal of the writ
petition.
This Petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, K.JOHN MATHAI, JOSON MANAVALAN, KURYAN
THOMAS, PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM & RAJA KANNAN, Advocates for the petitioner,
the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.8274/2023 2/6
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 8274 of 2023
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2023
ORDER
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2
and 3. Issue urgent notice by speed post to the 1st respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the 1st respondent was allotted 25 cents of land and a line room
owned by the company for cultivation during the tenure of his
employment under the petitioner. The 1st respondent has attained
superannuation on 31.03.2012 after rendering 38 years of service under
the petitioner. The learned counsel urges that in terms of the Kerala
Plantation Labour Rules 1959, an employee, upon his/her resignation, is
entitled to retain the property only for a maximum period of not
exceeding one month. In the case on hand, the 1st respondent has
been illegally occupying the premises for over 10 years. According to
WP(C) No.8274/2023 3/6
W.P.(C) No. 8274 of 2023
the learned counsel, it was without reckoning the above aspects that
respondents 2 and 3 ordered the petitioner to pay the gratuity due to
the 1st respondent. The learned counsel submits that the issue raised
in this writ petition is covered by the directions issued by a Division
Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 2894/2009 and connected cases,
wherein their lordships had occasion to hold as follows:
3. But, the fact of the matter remains that in these cases, labour
laws, which are expected to ensure a nice balance between the
bargaining capacity of the labour and the management, are apparently
abused by the labourers. They want the gratuity due under the relevant
statute to be released. That obviously means that they were no more in
the service of the establishment. However, in the same voice, they assert
that even after termination of the employer-employee relationship and
payment of gratuity, they would continue to hold possession of premises
allotted to be occupied by them, to reside, in the establishment's
buildings. This is something that is not conceived of; and, cannot be
countenanced in the realm of labour management in the backdrop of the
constitutional principles. As noted above, bargains between the
managements and labourers have to be nicely balanced. This has to be
done by visualizing that the labour force, by itself, may have a lesser
bargaining capacity. Collective labour force or any individual worker
cannot oppress or suppress the lawful rights of a management. While
the establishments or the managements cannot be permitted to act in
any manner hostile to the interest of the labourers, it has also to be
ensured that the labour force, individually or collectively, cannot torpedo
WP(C) No.8274/2023 4/6
W.P.(C) No. 8274 of 2023
the legitimate rights of a management to run its establishment lawfully,
legitimately and in accordance with its commercial needs, which would
also include the managements' need to provide accommodation for
labours who may be waiting in the queue for accommodation.
Occupation of premises for accommodation extended by the employer is
nothing but a permission to enjoy that co-terminus with the breaking up
of the jural relationship between the master and servant. No principle of
holding-over operates. Due process doctrine gets satisfied by the notice
to quit; nothing more. Management cannot be forced to file a suit or
take other proceedings in civil jurisdiction. That would be a mockery of
the concept of justice in terms of the Constitution and the laws.
For the aforesaid reasons, while affirming the impugned common
judgment, it is directed that, immediately on the management paying
the dues under the Payment of Gratuity Act, they would be entitled to
issue notice to each former employee, to vacate the respective premises
within a limited period of one week and if that does not happen, it will
be open to the management to dispossess them, if found necessary,
with police assistance. In such event, on the request of the petitioner,
optimum police force as warranted by the situation will be forthwith
assessed by the District Police Chief having jurisdiction over the area and
such police support shall be immediately extended for enforcement of
the directions contained in this judgment. ......
3. Let notice be issued to the 1st respondent.
4. Having regard to the submissions advanced and as it is
submitted that the gratuity amount has already been deposited before
the controlling authority, the authority shall defer the payment to the 1st
WP(C) No.8274/2023 5/6
W.P.(C) No. 8274 of 2023
respondent for the time being, if the same has not been disbursed to
date.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
sru
WP(C) No.8274/2023 6/6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8274/2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
16.01.2018 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
24.12.2020ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
