IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 861 of 2008(J)
1. K.LATHIKAMMA, THAZHATHEKUTTU (SRUTHY)
... Petitioner
2. ANJU.S.NAIR OF -DO-
3. T.S.RENJU OF -DO-.
Vs
1. SAHITHYA PRAVARTHAKA CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
4. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
5. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER (CONTROLLING
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/08/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
....................................................................
R.P. No.861 of 2008 in
W.P.(C) No.23616 of 2005
....................................................................
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008.
ORDER
Review Petition is filed for modifying the judgment which authorised
the management to adjust amounts if any due from the deceased employee
from out of gratuity ordered to be paid to him by the controlling authority.
who is the 5th respondent in the R.P. The amount adjusted by the
management is Rs.11,778/- which is stated to be an advance given to the
deceased employee. I have heard counsel appearing for the review
petitioner and counsel appearing for the first respondent. Even though
counsel for first respondent submitted that he has no instruction in the
matter, I do not think the Review Petition should be kept pending because
no instruction on facts are required for the purpose of disposal of the review
petition.
2. This court authorised management to make adjustments of any
amount due from the deceased. The court while disposing of the W.P. did
not consider the nature of claim the management had against the deceased.
Therefore, the adjustments authorised under the judgment obviously means
amounts admittedly due from the deceased. The legal heirs who are
2
respondents 5 to 7 in the W.P.(C) who filed the review petition, contended
that the management had no such case before the 5th respondent who
considered the gratuity claim. I find force in this contention because if
management raised their claim of dues from the deceased, the same would
have been considered by the District Labour Officer at the time of
considering the claim petition by review petitioners for grant of gratuity.
Therefore, no adjustment is permissible from the gratuity amount and
interest thereon ordered to be paid by the 5th respondent. Even though
review petitioners have filed a statement stating balance liability with
interest as Rs.81,798/-, I do not think there is any need for this court to
consider whether interest calculated is correct or not. On the face of it, it
is seen from the statement that review petitioners have given credit for
payments received periodically and have added interest on the balance
amount. It is for the management to consider whether the calculation of
interest is correct or not and if it is correct and in terms of the award of the
5th respondent, they should make payment within the time stipulated in the
judgment. However, if there is any controversy on the amount of interest
charged, I direct the 5th respondent to settle the dispute. I make it clear that
if the matter is unnecessarily dragged before the 5th respondent, he should
order cost besides actual interest. Therefore, any dispute raised by the
3
management before the 5th respondent should be absolutely bonafide and if
he finds otherwise, there will be direction to the 5th respondent to order
exemplary cost in favour of the review petitioners. Review Petition is
disposed of as above.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms