Kerala High Court
Kerala State Homeopathic Corporative ... vs P. J. Baurleigh on 29 February, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 8192 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC CORPORATIVE PHARMACY LIMITED
PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR DR. SOBHA CHANDRAN. R, AGED 49 YEARS,
W/O AYYAPPAN., PIN - 688521.
BY ADVS.
B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
P.PRAMEL
RESPONDENTS:
1 P. J. BAURLEIGH
PONNUM PURACKAL, THUBOLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688008.
2 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY OF PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT-1972,
KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691013.
SMT.RASMI THOMAS, GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8192 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is the 'Kerala State Homeopathic Co-operative
Pharmacy Ltd,' a Government of Kerala undertaking engaged in the
manufacturing and sale of Homeopathic Medicines. They have
approached this Court seeking to quash the Ext.P1 order passed by the
Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
2. Short facts are as under:-
a. The 1st respondent herein is stated to be an employee of the
petitioner establishment. He contends that the gratuity due to the
employee was not paid, the 1st respondent approached the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and filed an application under
Section 7 of the Act. It is stated that he was appointed on 15.05.2000 in
the establishment and superannuated on 31.12.2019. He further
contended that he had rendered service for about twenty years, and the
wages last drawn is Rs.31,020/-.
b. The petitioner, though received notice of the proceedings, did
not appear and contest the proceedings. The petitioner was set ex parte,
and the Controlling Authority, while considering the application, took note
of all the facts and proceeded to pass Ext.P1 award dated 2.05.2023,
ordering a sum of Rs.1,25,273/- to be paid by way of gratuity.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the
Controlling Authority and the same has become final. Further, the same
was not duly appealed against within the prescribed time under the
Payment of Gratuity Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was not able to contest the matter. According to the
learned counsel, there is a fatal error in the order passed by the
Controlling Authority as the period between 15.5.2000 and 1.05.2007
could not have been computed as continuous service. The said period
would have to be excluded while calculating the total amount of gratuity
that is to be paid. He contends that even a casual perusal of the award
passed by the Controlling Authority would disclose that relevant
documents were not placed before the Authority by the 1st respondent.
According to the learned counsel, as the appeal could not be filed within
the statutory period, the petitioner is left with no other alternative but to
approach this Court and seek to correct the error by filing a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the records carefully.
5. I find that the petitioner herein is a Government of Kerala
undertaking. They have admitted in the petition itself that the 1st
respondent was their employee. Claiming gratuity, the 1st respondent has
approached the statutory authority and filed an application under Section
7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It appears that the petitioner has not
chosen to contest the proceedings, and the Controlling Authority has
proceeded to pass an ex-parte award dated 2.5.2023. If the petitioner
was aggrieved by the passing of the award, they ought to have preferred
an appeal within the statutory period by depositing the amount as
ordered by way of gratuity, but the same has not been done.
6. I find that the Controlling Authority has considered the
evidence let in and has come to the conclusion that there is an
employee-employer relationship, and hence, the employee is entitled to
gratuity. The said finding arrived at by the lower authority as a result of
appreciation of evidence from the materials produced cannot be reopened
by this Court. It is trite that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a court of
appeal over the jurisdiction of the lower authority. Having gone through
the records, I have no doubt in my mind that the authority has acted
within its jurisdiction, and the findings arrived at by the lower authority is
clearly based on the evidence tendered before them. In that view of the
matter, no interference is warranted in the exercise of the powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This Writ Petition is found devoid of merits and the same is
dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8192/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2023 IN G.
C. NO. 470 OF 2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2007 ISSUED
BY THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (J)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
