Kerala High Court
P.P.Varghese vs The Regional Joint Labour Commissioner on 11 August, 2025
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..1..
2025:KER:59786
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37031 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.P.VARGHESE
AGED 81 YEARS
MANAGING TRUSTEE, GOOD SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL
AND JUNIOR COLLEGE, MADAPPALLY PO, THENGANA,
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686546
2 ADDL.P2: JOHNSON ABRAHAM MATHEW,
SON OF CHERUTHOMBIL CHACKO ABRAHAM, MANAGER,
GOOD SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE,
MADAPPALLY PO, THENGANA, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM ., RESIDING AT CHERUTHOMBIL KOMATTU,
THOTTAPUZHASSERY, PULLAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689 548. * ADDL P2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 27.02.2025 IN I.A.1/2025 IN WP(C)
37031/2024.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
SRI.P.S.GIREESH
SHRI.SALIH P.A.
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..2..
2025:KER:59786
SMT.THEJALAKSHMI R.S.
SHRI.ARJUN R NAIK
SHRI.ADITYA A. SHENOY
SHRI.UMASANKER U.U.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI.,
PIN - 682030
2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686631
3 MARIAMMA BABY
AGED 68 YEARS
WIFE OF BABY, PALLITHANAM HOUSE, KOTTAMURY P.O.,
THRIKODITHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM., PIN -
686105
BY ADVS.
SMT. MABLE C KURIAN, SR GP
SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN
SHRI.BABU M.
SMT.ANCY THANKACHAN
SMT.KRISHNENDU.D
SHRI.XAVIER K.K.
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..3..
2025:KER:59786
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.08.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).40961/2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..4..
2025:KER:59786
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40961 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.P.VARGHESE
AGED 81 YEARS
SON OF PAPPY VARGHESE, MANAGING TRUSTEE, GOOD
SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE,
MADAPPALLY PO, THENGANA, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM ., PIN - 686546
2 ADDL.P2.JOHNSON ABRAHAM MATHEW ,
SON OF CHERUTHOMBIL CHACKO ABRAHAM, MANAGER,
GOOD SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE,
MADAPPALLY PO, THENGANA, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT CHERUTHOMBIL KOMATTU,
THOTTAPUZHASSERY, PULLAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA
689548. [ADDL.P2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
27.02.2025 IN IA NO.1/2025 IN WP(C) 40961/2024]
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
SRI.P.S.GIREESH
SHRI.SALIH P.A.
SHRI.ADITYA A. SHENOY
SMT.CHANDANA C.
SHRI.ARJUN R NAIK
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..5..
2025:KER:59786
SHRI.UMASANKER U.U.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI .,
PIN - 682030
2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686631
3 MARIAMMA BABY
PALLITHANAM HOUSE, KOTTAMURY P.O.,
THRIKODITHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM ., PIN
- 686105
BY ADVS.
SMT. MABLE C KURIAN, SR GP
SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN
SHRI.BABU M.
SMT.ANCY THANKACHAN
SMT.KRISHNENDU.D
SHRI.XAVIER K.K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.08.2025, ALONG WITH
WP(C).37031/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..6..
2025:KER:59786
"C.R."
K.BABU, J
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos. 37031 & 40961 of 2024
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as
'the petitioner' for short) is the opposite party/employer
in the Gratuity Application (GC No. 274/2018) filed by
respondent No.3, the employee.
2. Respondent No.3, claiming to have been
employed in the services of Good Shepherd Public School
and Junior College of which the petitioner is the
Managing Trustee, filed a Gratuity Application before
respondent No.2 (the Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short)) under
Section 7 of the Act. Respondent No.3 claimed that she
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..7..
2025:KER:59786
had put in 25 years of service from 01.06.1993 to
26.03.2018 until retirement as High School Assistant in
the School and her last drawn monthly salary/wages was
Rs.30,000/-.
3. The petitioner resisted the application on
getting notice. He contended that respondent No.3
superannuated from the School on 31.03.2012 and as on
the date of superannuation she was paid a monthly gross
salary of Rs.21,833/-. After superannuation, on
31.03.2012, she was temporarily appointed as Senior
Headmistress till 2017, on payment of a consultancy fee
of Rs.15,000/- which was enhanced to Rs.27,500/- in June
2016. Later in 2017, she was appointed as Academic
Coordinator till 26.03.2018 on which date she was
relieved as per the circular issued by the CBSE. She was
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..8..
2025:KER:59786
paid Rs.30,000/- per month as consultancy fee when she
was so relieved.
4. The petitioner also contended that respondent
No.3 is not an employee under Section 2(e) of the Act.
Respondent No.3 filed replication denying the contentions
raised by the petitioner.
5. The Controlling Authority proceeded to take
evidence. Respondent No.3 gave evidence as AW1.
Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on her side. After hearing
both sides, the Controlling Authority allowed the
application directing the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.4,32,692/- as gratuity with 10% interest from
27.03.2018.
6. The petitioner filed a review petition seeking to
reconsider the Award. That petition was not considered.
Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.10453/2021
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..9..
2025:KER:59786
before this Court assailing the Award (Ext.P4). This
Court by judgment dated 06.12.2022 set aside Ext.P4 and
remanded back the application to respondent No.2 for
consideration afresh, after giving an opportunity to the
petitioner to lead evidence. Pursuant to the judgment of
this Court, the Controlling Authority reconsidered the
matter. The petitioner gave evidence as OPW1. Exts.B1
to B11 series were marked.
7. After hearing, the Controlling Authority passed
Ext.P6 Award on 16.08.2023 retaining Ext.P4 Award
passed by him prior to the remand of the matter .
8. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner filed
an appeal, GA No.139/2023, under Section 7(7) of the
Gratuity Act before respondent No.1 (the Appellate
Authority).
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..10..
2025:KER:59786
9. Respondent No.3 also filed appeal, as
G.A.No.153 of 2023, challenging Ext.P6 order, to the
extent it restored Ext.P4 and refused to grant interest.
10. The Appellate Authority, on 15.07.2024, allowed
the appeal filed by respondent No.3 by modifying Ext.P6
order and setting aside the last paragraph therein to the
effect it retained in tact the previous order and also
directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,32,692/- as gratuity
with interest at 10% per annum from 27.03.2018 (Ext.P8).
11. The Appellate Authority however did not
dispose of G.A. No.139 of 2023. Therefore, the petitioner
filed W.P.(C) No.37031 of 2024 before this Court. As per
interim order dated 22.10.2024, this Court directed the
Government Pleader to get instructions on the status of
Ext.P7 appeal. On, 30.07.2024, the Appellate Authority
had passed an order dismissing GA No.139/2023.
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..11..
2025:KER:59786
12. The petitioner challenges the order dated
15.07.2023 passed in GA No.153/2023 in W.P.(C) No.
37031 of 2024 and order dated 30.07.2024 passed in GA
No.139/2023 in W.P.(C) No.40961 of 2024.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the
following submissions:-
(a) As both appeals arose from the same order,
the Appellate Authority ought to have
considered and disposed of them together.
(b)Confirmation of the impugned order allowing
the appeal filed by respondent No.3 has
prejudiced the petitioner while it considered the
appeal filed by respondent No.3.
(c)The appellate authority has not considered
the challenges of the petitioner regarding the
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..12..
2025:KER:59786
date of superannuation and the last drawn
salary claimed by respondent No.3.
14. The learned counsel for respondent No.3
submitted the following:-
(a)In the order dated 15.07.2023 passed in
G.A.No.153 of 2023, the Appellate Authority had
not gone into any of the merits of the contentions
raised by the petitioner, but only rectified a
patent error.
(b) No prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner due to the separate consideration of
the appeals by the appellate authority.
15. The learned Government Pleader supported the
order passed by the Appellate Authority, contending that
the successive disposal of the appeals separately has not
caused any prejudice to the petitioner.
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..13..
2025:KER:59786
16. The order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the
Controlling Authority in GC No. 274/2018 was challenged
by the petitioner in WP(C) No.10453 of 2021 before this
Court. This Court by judgment dated 06.12.2022 set aside
the Award dated 12.02.2021 and remanded the matter to
the Controlling Authority for reconsideration afresh, after
affording an opportunity to the petitioner to lead
evidence. Further, in the order passed after remand,
(Ext.P6) the Controlling Authority retained the previous
order, the operative portion of which reads thus:-
"Therefore, based on the pleadings in the application,
documents, and arguments, the order issued by this
authority on 12.02.2021 is hereby retained and thus
ordered."
17. Respondent No.3 challenged this Order before
the Appellate Authority on two grounds:-
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..14..
2025:KER:59786
(a)The Controlling Authority committed an error by
retaining an order that had already been quashed by the
High Court .
(b)The Controlling Authority refused to grant interest.
18. After considering the contentions, the Appellate
Authority passed Ext.P8 order, the relevant portion of
which reads thus:-
"Upon examining the facts of the appeal, it is
understood that there is merit in the arguments of the
appellant. Therefore, the last part of the order dated
16/08/2023 (G.C. 274/2018) of the Gratuity Control
Officer, which retained the previous order, is set aside and
replaced with the following:
"The amount of ₹4,32,692/- (Rupees Four lakh thirty-two
thousand six hundred ninety-two only) as gratuity payable
by the respondent to the applicant, along with 10% simple
interest from 27/31/2018, shall be paid within 30 days of
receipt of this order failing which, the above amount shall
be recovered from the respondent through revenue
recovery proceedings under the relevant provisions of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972."
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..15..
2025:KER:59786
19. It is relevant to note that, in Ext.P8 order, the
Appellate Authority did not address any of the
contentions raised by the petitioner. Apart from rectifying
the error in the order, the Authority only granted simple
interest at the rate of 10% on the amount awarded
20. Relying on, Unnikrishna Pillai P.V. v. HDFC
Bank Limited [2024 KHC 1516], the learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the two appeals should have
been considered together. In Unnikrishna Pillai, this
Court observed thus:-
13. Be that as it may, it should be noted that the
employer had filed Ext.P5 appeal against the order of the
Gratuity Authority and the had filed Ext.P7 appeal
against the same order. Ext.P8 relates to Ext.P5 appeal
filed by the 1st respondent -employer. As two appeals
were filed against the very same order of the Controlling
Authority, it would have been advisable for the Appellate
Authority to consider both the appeals together and pass
order /orders.
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..16..
2025:KER:59786
21. In Unnikrishna Pillai, this Court was
considering two appeals, one preferred by the employer
and the other preferred by the employee raising various
contentious issues which are closely interrelated. In that
context, this Court held that as two appeals were filed
against the very same order, it would have been advisable
for the Appellate Authority to consider both the appeals
together and pass orders.
22. The facts under consideration in these appeals
are distinguishable from the facts considered in
Unnikrishna Pillai. While appreciating the contentions
raised by both sides on the legality of the disposal of the
appeals separately one after another by the Appellate
Authority, it is relevant to consider the test of prejudice.
As held by the Supreme Court in Dharampal Satyapal
Ltd. v. CCE [(2015) 8 SCC 519], the ultimate test of
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..17..
2025:KER:59786
validity of an order is the test of 'prejudice'. In the
present case, the Appellate Authority has not considered
any of the grounds urged by the petitioner while
considering the appeal filed by respondent No.3. In that
appeal, an error on technical ground was rectified by the
Appellate Authority and interest was granted for the
amount awarded. This Court finds no prejudice to the
petitioner in the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal
filed by respondent No.3 prior to the disposal of the
appeal filed by the petitioner. The Controlling Authority
was not legally permitted to retain an order quashed by
the High Court. The Appellate Authority, taking note of
this fact, rectified the Award passed by the Controlling
Authority and granted interest. It may be confirmation of
the Award passed by the Controlling Authority. However,
while disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner, the
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..18..
2025:KER:59786
Controlling Authority considered all the relevant
contentions raised by respondent No.3. It also referred to
the illegality of the Controlling Authority in retaining the
order which stood quashed by the High Court in W.P.(C)
No. WP(C) No.10453 of 2021. I am unable to find any
prejudice being caused to the petitioner due to the
separate consideration and disposal of the two appeals.
23. It is also relevant to import the principle
contained in Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure while considering this question. There is no
illegality in granting more than one judgment or order in
two stages of a suit. As per Order XII Rule 6 where
admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings
or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may
at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any
party or of its own motion and without waiting for the
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..19..
2025:KER:59786
determination of any other question between the parties,
make such order or give such judgment as it may think
fit, having regard to such admissions. The Court may
later pronounce a judgment on the issues framed based
on a material proposition of fact or law affirmed by one
party and denied by the other.
24. In the given case, the Appellate Authority
passed an order rectifying a mistake which was admitted
by both sides. The Appellate Authority in the appeal filed
by the employer later considered all these contentions
separately and disposed of the appeal.
25. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is
no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Appellate
Authority in considering the two appeals separately and
disposing of the same one after another.
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..20..
2025:KER:59786
26. On the merit of the other contentions raised by
the petitioner regarding the finding on facts arrived at by
the Appellate Authority, I am of the considered view that
the two fact finding authorities applied its mind carefully
and came to the conclusion that respondent No.2 is
entitled to a sum of Rs.4,32,692/- as gratuity. This Court
finds no apparent error or illegality in the impugned
orders warranting an interference exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
These Writ Petitions lack merits and therefore stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
K.BABU JUDGE
kkj
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..21..
2025:KER:59786
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37031/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION ALONG WITH
ANNEXURE ATTACHED THEREWITH FILED BY
3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER DATED 19.2.2019
IN GC NO.274 OF 2018 FILED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLICATION DATED NIL IN
GC NO.274 OF 2018 FILED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT,
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.02.2021 IN
GC NO.274 OF 2018 PASSED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2022
IN W.P.(C) NO.10453 OF 2021 BEFORE
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.8.2023
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
DATED 26.10.2023 IN GRATUITY APPEAL
NO.139 OF 2023 FILED BY PETITIONER
BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 31.10.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO
PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT
ALONGWITH ITS READABLE COPY
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
DATED 27.11.2023 IN GRATUITY APPEAL
NO.153 OF 2023 FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..22..
2025:KER:59786
DATED 26.11.2023 FILED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 4.12.2023
ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
AND 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.7.2024
PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29.7.2024
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) A true copy of the discharge summary
issued by Carithas Hospital, Kottayam
District dated 04.02.2023
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..23..
2025:KER:59786
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40961/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION ALONG WITH
ANNEXURE ATTACHED THEREWITH FILED BY
3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER DATED 19.2.2019
IN GC NO.274 OF 2018 FILED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLICATION DATED NIL IN
GC NO.274 OF 2018 FILED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.02.2021 IN
GC NO.274 OF 2018 PASSED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2022
IN W.P.(C) NO.10453 OF 2021 BEFORE
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.8.2023
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
DATED 26.10.2023 IN GRATUITY APPEAL
NO.139 OF 2023 FILED BY PETITIONER
BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.7.2024
PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN GRATUITY
APPEAL NO.153 OF 2023
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.7.2024
PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN GRATUITY
APPEAL NO.139 OF 2023
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
W.P.(C)NoS . 37031& 40961 of 2024
..24..
2025:KER:59786
Exhibit R3(b) A true copy of the discharge summary
issued by Carithas Hospital, Kottayam
District dated 04.02.2023
Exhibit R3(a) A true copy of the appeal memorandum
Exhibit R3(c) A true copy of the objection filed by
the deponent in G.A 139/2023 dated
27/11/2023
