Mariyamma Baby vs P.M.Ferosh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9619 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
     FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 17TH BHADRA, 1945
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 1778 OF 2023
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 10453/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                      KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
           MARIYAMMA BABY, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.BABY KURUVILA,
           PALLITHANAM HOUSE, KOTTAMURY P.O, THRIKKODITHANAM,
           CHANGANASSERY, PIN - 686105

             BY ADVS.
             C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
             T.K.DEVARAJAN
             ANCY THANKACHAN
             BABU M.
             NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN
             GOURI KAILASH


RESPONDENT/S:
           P.M.FEROSH(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
           PETITIONER), THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
           CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
           1972, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
           ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631

             BY JUSTIN JACOB, GP


     THIS    CONTEMPT    OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1778 OF 2023



                            JUDGMENT

1. This Court has set aside the order with the observation

that the parties would be given chance to lead evidence. On the

last date of hearing, this Court on the basis of the contention

made by the counsel for the State had passed the following order:

"It is submitted that as per the order of the remand passed by this Court, next date of hearing before the competent authority is scheduled for 16.8.2023. In this view of the matter, hearing of the contempt petition is deferred to 5.9.2023.

It is made clear that in case there is no complete compliance, the officer concerned should be present in court on the next date of hearing."

2. Affidavit has been filed by the respondent to the effect

that the order has been passed, whereby the claim of the

petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner is at liberty to

challenge the same, in accordance with law.

Contempt petition is ordered to be closed.

Sd/-

sab                                           AMIT RAWAL
                                                JUDGE
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1778 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1778/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).10453/2021 DATED 06-12-2022.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12-06-2023 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.