IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 18285 of 2001(B)
1. STAR ENTERPRISES
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL JT.LABOUR COMMISSIONER,KLM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR(QUILON)
For Respondent :SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/02/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
O.P.No. 18285 of 2001
==================
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This original petition came up in the Defect List since the
petitioner could not serve notice on the 3rd respondent. The notice
issued to the 3rd respondent has been returned unserved stating that
the addressee is out of India. The defect was noted as early as on
24.6.2008. The petitioner has not taken any steps thereafter to get
notice served on the 3rd respondent. In above circumstances, I
directed the counsel for the petitioner to argue the case on merits to
ascertain whether the petitioner has made out a case. Accordingly, the
counsel for the petitioner was heard.
2. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P10 and P13 orders of
the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, whereby in G..C.Nos.58/95 and 18/1996 the claim of
respondents 3 and 4 for gratuity has been upheld which has been
computed as Rs.7067/- and Rs.2423/- respectively. The said amount
was directed to be paid with ten percent interest. The contention of the
petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 did not have 5 years of
continuous service in the petitioner’s establishment and therefore,
they are not eligible for gratuity. In the original petition the petitioner
o.p.18285/01 2
would take a contention that formerly respondents 3 and 4 were
employed in M/s.Star Enterprises, Kundara, and in 1991 only they
joined the petitioner’s establishment, which is Star Enterprises, Kollam,
which are two different establishments. The petitioner would contend
that the petitioner has specifically raised a contention in the written
statement that respondents 3 and 4 did not have 5 years continuous
service in the petitioner’s establishment and therefore, they are not
entitled to gratuity under the Act, which contention has not been
properly considered by respondents 1 and 2. Exts.P6 and P7 are the
written statements filed by the petitioner before the Controlling
Authority. That does not contain any contention that respondents 3
and 4 were originally in Star Enterprises, Kundara, and later on joined
the petitioner’s establishment and the two establishments are separate
entities. In any event, I find that the Controlling Authority and the
Appellate Authority had examined the evidence adduced by both sides
before it and had come to the conclusion that respondents 3 and 4 had
more than five years’ continuous service in the petitioner’s
establishment. Those are questions of fact which two authorities have
concurrently found against the petitioner. I do not find anything
perverse in those findings. That being so, there is no reason to
exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, that
too, in a gratuity case under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is a
o.p.18285/01 3
beneficial legislation. In this case I also note that the petitioner had
himself admits that respondents 3 and 4 had four-and-a-half years’
and 4 years and 3 months services. Taking into account all these
circumstances, I dismiss the original petition.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
O.P.No. 18285 of 2001-B
==================
J U D G M E N T
20th February, 2009