Kerala High Court
Kerala Agricultural University vs The Controlling Authority Under ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
1
2025:KER:36447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40562 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KAU P.O.,
VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR - 680 656, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
BY ADV SRI.M.V.ANANDAN, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
ACT,1972 (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER),
TRISSUR - 680 001.
2 M.I. JOSE
MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTALAKUNNU, MAANNUTHY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SMT.B.MEERA
SRI.RAHUL SURENDRAN
SRI.S.SABARINADH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
19.05.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).10195/2018, THE COURT ON
28.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2
2025:KER:36447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10195 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR
PIN-680656, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
BY ADV ADV SRI.M.V.ANANDAN, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
ACT 1972
(DY.LABOUR COMMISSIONER), THRISSUR-680001.
2 SRI.I.K.VELUKUTTY
S/O.KUNJAN, IRINGALAKKUDAKKARAN HOUSE, PATTALAKKUNNU
ROAD, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR-680651.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SMT.B.MEERA
SRI.RAHUL SURENDRAN
SRI.S.SABARINADH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
19.05.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).40562/2017, THE COURT ON
28.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
3
2025:KER:36447
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
Two workers who had been serving in the hostel
mess of the Kerala Agricultural University approached
the Controlling Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as 'the
Gratuity Act') seeking a direction to the University
to pay them gratuity for the period during which they
were employed in the hostel mess of the University.
The Controlling Authority allowed their applications.
These writ petitions are by the University,
challenging the said order. The matter is before us on
a reference made by the learned Single Judge.
2. The factual issues in both the writ petitions
are similar. The party respondent in W.P.
(C)No.40562/2017 worked in the mess from 01.01.1975 to
15.09.2009. The party respondent in
W.P.(C)No.10195/2018 worked in the mess from
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
01.01.1991 to 31.08.2005. After the said period, the
University appointed them as casual labourers, taking
into account their prior service as mess workers. They
continued as casual labourers until superannuation,
and the University paid gratuity to them for the said
period. However, their claim for gratuity for the
period they were employed in the hostel mess was
declined.
3. Thereupon, the employees approached the
Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act. The
authority accepted their claim and directed the
University to pay the gratuity for the said period.
The order is under challenge in these writ petitions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.
5. The contention of the University is that there
is no employer-employee relationship between the
University and the respective respondents. The mess is
not run by the University but by the "mess committee"
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
constituted by the students. Their appointment and
payment of salary were made by the committee. The
payment was from a "mess fund" collected by the mess
committee from the inmates. Therefore, they are not
the employees of the University. Thus, the University
has no liability to pay gratuity to the respondents,
it is argued.
6. The respective respondents, on the other hand,
contend that the hostel is under the control of the
University and the University is the ultimate
controlling authority. The University is the real
employer and is liable to pay gratuity, it is claimed.
7. The hostel is run under the "RULES FOR HOSTELS
ATTACHED TO THE COLLEGES/INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE
UNIVERSITY". A Division Bench of this Court in
Sathikumar P. v. The Vice Chancellor, Agricultural
University (W.A.No.1255/1994), while considering the
question whether the employees of the hostel are
entitled to apply for selection for training as
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
Livestock Assistants under the University, held
that the workers in the mess were not employees or
labourers of the University. Relying upon the said
judgment, the learned counsel for the University
submitted that the claim of the respondents as
against the University is only to be turned down.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents relied
on the judgment of a learned single judge of this
Court in Warden, College of Horticulture v. The
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (W.P.
(C)No.23586/2005). The question therein was whether
the University was liable to pay the provident fund
contribution for the mess workers. It was answered in
favour of the worker. The learned counsel also relied
on the judgment of the Apex Court in G.B.Pant
University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar,
Nainital v. State of U.P. and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 109],
wherein, the Apex Court, on considering a somewhat
similar Rules held the cafeteria workers of Gobind
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and
Technology to be entitled to claim regularisation
of service under the University. Therefore, the
authority was right in having upheld the liability
of the University for payment of gratuity, it is
argued.
9. The learned single Judge before whom these writ
petitions came up for consideration was of the opinion
that the judgment of the Apex Court was on a different
set of Rules and that there is apparent conflict in
the view adopted in Warden, College of Horticulture v.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, and
Sathikumar P. v. The Vice Chancellor, Agricultural
University. This led to the reference. The learned
single Judge formulated the following questions in the
reference order:
(a) Whether the judgment of this Court in
WP(C) No.23586/2005 dated 26.5.2016 (Warden,
College of Horticulture v. The Regional
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
Provident Fund Commissioner) lays down the
correct proposition of law in view of the
judgment of the Division Bench in Sathikumar
P and others Vs. Vice Chancellor,
Agricultural University and another [WA No
1225 of 1994]?
(b) Whether the judgment of the Division
Bench in Sathikumar P and others Vs Vice
Chancellor, Agricultural University and
another- WA No 1225 of 1994 requires
reconsideration in light of the decision of
the Supreme Court in G.B.Pant University of
Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar,
Nainital v. State of U.P. and Others [(2000)
7 SCC 109]?
(c) Whether the Hostel Mess Rules framed by
the Kerala Agriculture University do have a
statutory flavour or the same is merely an
administrative instruction?
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
10. Firstly, we proceed to understand the judgment
of the Apex Court in G.B.Pant University's case. In
that case, the University maintained a cafeteria to
provide food to the inmates of the university's hostel
and others. A "food committee" consisting of students
managed and controlled the cafeteria. The appointments
were not in accordance with the University Act,
Statute, or any Rules framed thereunder. There was no
budgetary allocation to meet the expenses, including
the salaries of the mess employees.
11. The Apex Court took note of the various
provisions in the Regulations framed under the U.P
Agricultural University Act, which explicitly
stipulated overall control and supervision by the
University. It was held that the legal responsibility
cannot be shifted to the students. It was noticed that
the Regulations providing for the involvement of
students were only to ensure their participation,
cooperation, and for moral, persuasive and democratic
reasons. Some of the Regulations specifically taken
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
note of by the Honourable Court were, the compulsory
requirement of every student in the hostel to join the
cafetaria unless permitted by the Chief Warden of the
hostel; a separate account to be maintained to be
operated by the Comptroller of the University, the
staff work under the direct supervision of the Warden
or Assistant Warden, although they also follow the
advice of the student food committee the appointments
and termination of service of the staff were to be
dealt with by the Chief Warden on consultation with
the "Food Committee", though the appointments were
made by the "Food Committee" with the approval of the
Chief Warden. The Honourable Court observed:
"The situation is rather awesome and deplorable - the
University by compulsion directs students to be
residents of the hostel with a definite ban on having
food from outside agencies excepting under special
circumstances and the provider of food, namely the
staff of the cafeteria ought not to be treated as an
employee of the University - whose employees are they
if we may ask and we think it would not be impertinent
on our part to ask the same - is it the consumer of
food? Since when the consumer of food becomes the
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
employer?"
After evaluating the above factors, the Apex Court
concluded that the cafteria employees are to be
considered as employees of the University.
12. In Warden, College of Horticulture v. The
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the question
involved was whether the University was liable to pay
Employees Provident Fund contributions of the workers
in the mess of the University. This Court referred to
the Hostel Rules in present case, and noted the
meaning of the terms "employee" and "employer" under
Section 2(f) and 2(i)(e) of the Employees Provident
fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act viz., the term
'employee' includes any person who is employed in
connection with the work of an establishment directly
or indirectly by the employer (including through a
contractor) and that the term 'employer' is defined to
mean a person who has ultimate control over the
affairs of the establishment and found that
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
the University was bound to make contributions.
13. In Sathikumar P. v. The Vice Chancellor,
Agricultural University, the Hostel Rules in the
present case was under consideration. The question
that arose for determination there was whether the
employees of the hostel belonging to the Kerala
Agricultural University were entitled to apply for
selection for training as Livestock Assistants under
the University. After referring to the Hostel Rules
framed by the Kerala Agricultural University, the
Division Bench found that workers in the mess were not
employees or labourers of the Agricultural University
and thus they were not entitled to apply for selection
for training as Livestock Assistants.
14. From the above discussion, it is evident that the
subject of consideration in Warden, College of
Horticulture v. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner and in Sathikumar P. v. The Vice
Chancellor, Agricultural University was under
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
different statutes, and the scope of the litigation
was also different. We find that there is no conflict
between the two judgments.
15. With regard to the conflict between Sathikumar
P and others Vs Vice Chancellor, Agricultural
University and G.B.Pant University of Agriculture &
Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital v. State of U.P.
(supra), the said issue does not arise for
consideration, as there is no claim before us for the
regularisation of the service of any mess employee.
16. Now, we proceed to the facts of the present
case. The respondents were employed as mess workers in
the hostel, and their term of employment is not in
dispute. The only challenge raised is regarding the
liability of the University to pay gratuity. The
contention is that the University is not the employer
and hence is not liable.
17. To resolve the issue, it is necessary to
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
advert to certain provisions of the Kerala
Agricultural University Act, 1971 (the Act) and the
Hostel Rules. Section 56 of the Act requires that
students shall reside in the hostel. The Section reads
thus:
56. Residence of students:- Students shall
reside in accommodations maintained by the
University or which have been approved by the
Director of Students Welfare, subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed.
Chapter VIII of the Agricultural Universities Act,
1971 provides for the issuance of 'statutes',
'ordinances', 'Regulations' and 'orders' for carrying
out the objectives of the said Act and for the
administration of various establishments under the
University. As per Section 49 of the Act, the General
Council of the University can issue such Statutes with
the concurrence of the Chancellor.
18. The First Statute of the Agricultural
Universities prescribe the method of appointment and
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
duties of the Hostel Manager. The duties prescribed
read as follows:
"Duties
(1)He shall assist the Assistant Warden of the
Hostels and also the hostel committee in the day
to day running of the hostel mess.
(2)He shall be responsible for the proper
maintenance of the Stock Registers under the
charge of the Assistant Warden.
(3)He shall maintain the mess registers and all
related vouchers, records and files for the
purchase of stores for the hostel mess.
(4)He shall be responsible for the proper and timely
maintenance of hostel admission register and also
the register for collection of hostel rent, water
and electricity charges from the inmates of the
hostel.
(5)He shall be responsible for the preparation of
the demand, collection and balance statement
(quarterly, half yearly and annual) of rent,
electricity and water charges and other duties, if
any, from the inmates of the hostels.
(6) He shall maintain the register of Boarding and
Lodging claims in respect of Schedules Caste and
Scheduled Tribe and Christian convert students.
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
(7) He shall also perform any other duties relating
to the hostels, under the written orders of the
Warden of the hostels."
Akin to the Hostel Regulations in G.B.Pant University
case, going by the Hostel Rules, though a mess
committee comprising the students is managing the
mess, the ultimate control and superintendence is with
the University. The relevant rules are as under:
"Administration
a) The hostels in each College/Institute
shall be under the direct control of the
respective Dean/Assoc. Dean/Head of
Institution who will be the Warden. The
Warden's decision shall be final in all the
matters connected with the hostel.
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
d)There shall be Resident Tutors for each
hostel who shall be responsible for the
maintenance of discipline in the hostel and
shall assist the Assistant Warden in all
his/her duties.
Admission
a) Admission to the hostel is ordinarily
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
restricted to the students of Kerala
Agricultural University.
b) All the students should reside in the
hostel unless exempted by the Dean/Assoc.
Dean/Head of Institution on the ground that
they are residing with their parents or
guardians.
c) The Warden may permit members of the staff
of the University or trainees or part-time
students also to reside in hostels, if
accommodation is available, as special cases.
d)Application for admission to the hostels in
the prescribed form (Annexure) shall be
submitted to the Assistant Warden. The Warden
will have the right to refuse admission to
any applicant without assigning reasons.
Hostel Mess
a) The mess may frame its own by-laws
consistent with the rules and subject to the
approval of the Assistant Warden. The mess
by-laws once framed shall not ordinarily be
altered during the courses of the year.
b) All residents of the hostel must be
members of the hostel mess and are required
to pay a Mess advance of Rs.400 when they are
admitted to the hostel. The amount so
collected shall constitute the 'Mess Fund'
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
which will be credited to the Wardens
Account. The Mess fund shall be operated by
the Asst. Warden.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
e) Day scholars, members of teaching staff
and other University employees may also be
permitted to use the facilities of the hostel
mess with the permission of the Assistant
Warden. They will have to deposit a sum of
Rs.50/- as mess advance and meet other
charges fixed by the Assistant Warden.
f) The residents of the hostel are permitted
to run their own mess in the hostel on no
loss no profit basis. The management of the
mess shall be the responsibility of the
students, subject to control of the Assistant
Warden.
g) The hostel mess shall be managed by a Mess
Committee consisting of student
representatives. The mess committee shall be
elected every month by the members of the
hostel. The number of the Mess Committee
shall be fixed as 5 of which one shall be the
Mess Secretary. The Mess committee shall hold
office for a period of one month only.
h) The mess account is a private account
operated by the Assistant Warden and Mess
Committee. The Mess Committee shall satisfy
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
themselves with the correctness of
accounting. The accounts shall be maintained
by the Assistant Warden.
i) The 'dividing system' shall b e followed
in bearing the expenses of the Mess. All
expenses including salary of cooks shall be
from the mess expense for a month. The
account shall be audited every month by two
auditors elected every month from the
inmates.
j) Reduction from mess charges shall be
granted to members, if they are absent from
the mess for at least 3 consecutive days. The
request for reduction must be given to the
Asst. Warden in writing before the members
leave the Hostel. The rates of reduction
shall be: ........
Mess servants
a) The mess committee shall be the appointing
authority for hostel mess servants subject to
the approval of the Warden on the
recommendations of the Assistant Warden. The
terms and conditions may be as laid down by
the mess committee from time to time. The
term of appointment of all mess servants
shall not exceed one academic year that is
from the reopening of the college/institution
to the closure of the College/Institution
after the University examinations. The mess
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
servants shall remain automatically
discharged from service at the time of annual
closure of the College/Institution.
b) The Assistant Warden shall be responsible
for the maintenance of proper discipline and
good conduct among the mess servants. The
Mess Committee shall be competent to
recommend punishment including suspension or
removal from service of any Mess Servant,
with reasons thereof. Such disciplinary
action against mess servants shall be
recommended by the Asst. Warden of the
concerned hostel to Warden for further
action. The Warden shall be the disciplinary
authority in all such cases.
Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 12
the Warden shall be competent to discharge
all or any of mess servants if he is
satisfied that the discipline, cleanliness
and/or conduct of the mess servants are not
satisfactory or if their continuance in the
hostel mess is considered injurious to the
interest of the students, the hostel or the
college or institute (as amended vide order
No.Acd A3-42966/81 dt. 10-11-81.
Hostel Committee
xxxx xxxx xxxx
The Warden and the Assistant Warden shall be
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
President and Vice-President respectively of
the Committee.
(Emphasis supplied)
The rules as above indicate the overall control of the
University over the hostel and the mess. The
appointment or termination of a mess worker is to be
made with the approval of the Warden. The role of the
mess committee is only recommendatory. The life of a
mess committee is only for one month. The strength of
the hostel inmates and the mess consumers may vary.
But the workers are entitled to their wages and
statutory benefits. The Hostel Rules provide for the
grant of a rebate during the period of absence of an
inmate. All these cannot affect the statutory rights
of the mess worker. The Hostel Rules reveal the
ultimate control of the University over the hostel and
the mess. The duties of the Hostel Manager as
prescribed under the First Statute have already been
noted. This has much similarity to the Regulations in
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
G.B.Pant University case.
19. Now we may advert to the specific statutory
scheme of the Gratuity Act. As per Section 2(e) of the
said Act, a person who is employed for wages in any
kind of work in connection with the work of an
establishment to which the said Act applies is an
'employee', whether or not the terms of employment are
express or implied, if the employment is for any kind
of work in connection with the work of the
establishment. There is no dispute that the said Act
applies to the petitioner University. As per Section
2(f), a person can be said to be the 'employer' if he
has the ultimate control over the affairs of the
establishment. If we read Sections 4, 7 and 9 of the
said Act together, it is evident that the purpose of
the said definition is to fix the liability on the
employer i.e., the person in ultimate control over the
affairs of a particular establishment, to pay the
gratuity of an employee viz., a person who is employed
for wages whether or not the terms of employment are
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
express or implied when the employment is for any kind
of work in connection with the work of the
establishment.
20. The Gratuity Act being a beneficial
legislation, its provisions should be construed
liberally and in such a manner to uphold the
objectives of the Act. The above provisions in the
said Act cast a burden on the person having ultimate
control over the affairs of the establishment to pay
the gratuity to the worker.
21. The Warden appointed by the University
alone can appoint the mess workers, based on the
recommendation of the Assistant Warden. The
disciplinary authority of the mess staff is also the
Warden. Significantly, the Rule further states that
the Assistant Warden, who is appointed by the
Dean/Head of the Institution from among the academic
staff of the college [see Rule 2(b)], is responsible
for the general control and management of the hostel
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
mess. He is also responsible for maintaining the
account of the mess and collection, and operation of
the mess fund. In the above circumstance, if the mess
workers are entitled to get gratuity under the said
Act, it cannot be said that the University has no
liability to pay the gratuity amount due to the
workers of the mess. The Warden or the Assistant
Warden or such other authority who was in the ultimate
control of the hostel messes could have maintained the
no profit-no loss account of the Mess Fund in such a
manner so as to meet the amount necessary to pay the
gratuity to such mess workers, if they are entitled to
get it. The Mess Committee, comprising only the
students' representatives, is only a fluctuating body
having the life span of just one month [Rule 10(g) of
the Rules]. If we take a stand that such a fluctuating
body would be the employer of the mess workers who are
responsible for paying the gratuity, it would fly in
the face of the very objective of the Gratuity Act.
22. Coming to the question regarding statutory
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
flavour for the Hostel Rules, we are of the opinion
that it has practically no significance in the case at
hand. Admittedly, the hostel and the mess were
functional during the relevant period in accordance
with the Hostel Rules. The Hostel Rules gave the
University comprehensive control over the hostel and
the mess. At any rate, we have already noted the
relevant provisions under the Agricultural
Universities Act, 1971, which provides for the
issuance of 'statutes', 'ordinances', 'Regulations'
and 'orders' for carrying out the objectives of the
said Act and for the administration of various
establishments under the University. The provisions of
the First Statute of the University and the said Rules
complement each other.
23. Taking cue from the judgment of the Apex
Court in G.B.Pant University case, and having due
regard to the provisions of the first Statute and the
relevant Hostel Rules of the University, we hold that
the University is deemed to be the employer of the
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
mess workers, as far as the liability to pay gratuity
is concerned. We concur with the Controlling Authority
in having held so. We are also mindful of the
submission made by the learned Standing Counsel
for the University, that the University
discontinued the practice of engaging mess workers
through the Mess Committee quite some time back,
and that all such mess workers, including the
petitioners herein, have attained the age of
superannuation.
On the above discussion, the writ petitions are
bound to fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10195/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AS GC5/2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE
UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1-11-94 IN
W.A.NO.1225/94 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-1-2018 IN
GC 5/2014 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC 40562/2017
DATED 20-12-2017 GRANTING INTERIM STAY.
WP(C) Nos.40562/2017, 10195/2018
2025:KER:36447
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40562/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE
UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01.11.1994 IN
W.A.NO. 1225/1994 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.08.2005 OF THE
UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.05.2017.
