The State Farms Corporation Of … vs P.D.Mathai on 7 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1021 of 2008()


1. THE STATE FARMS CORPORATION OF INDIA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.D.MATHAI, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE

3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :07/08/2009

 O R D E R
                 S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. &
                   KURIAN JOSEPH,J.
        -------------------------------------------------
                 W.A.No.1021 of 2008
       --------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009

                         JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph,J.

Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The

essential issue pertains to the question as to whether the

appellant/employer is entitled to withhold amounts payable

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The learned single

Judge held that the issue is wholly covered against the

appellant by atleast three decisions of this court including the

Bench decision in Mathew v. Plantation Corporation of

Kerala Ltd. (2000 (3) KLT 107). Though learned counsel for

the appellant-management made a vehement attempt to

persuade this court to take a different view pursuant to the

decision taken by the High Court of Delhi in State Farm

Corporation of India Ltd. v. Regional Commissioner &

Another, (2007 (1) LLJ 763), we find it difficult to be

W.A.No.1021 of 2008

-:2:-

persuaded. The High Court of Kerala has taken a consistent

view. We also find that the issue is otherwise broadly covered

by the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara v. Union of

India (AIR 1983 SC 130). Therefore, the appeal fails and it is

accordingly dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that

the dismissal of the appeal may not stand in the way of the

appellant taking recourse to their remedy before appropriate

forum and in which case the time taken by the

appellant/petitioner before this court in bona fide prosecuting the

writ petition and the writ appeal may be excluded. If any such

course of action is open to the appellant/writ petitioner before

any forum under law, it is open to the appellant/petitioner to

approach that forum and the permission of this court is not

necessary and needless to say that the judgments of this court

will not stand in the way of the appellant/petitioner taking

recourse to such action. We make it clear that in the event of the

W.A.No.1021 of 2008

-:3:-

appellant/writ petitioner approaching the said forum, the time

taken by the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petition and the

writ appeal will be taken note of in considering the period of

limitation.

S.R.BANNURMATH,
Chief Justice

KURIAN JOSEPH,
Judge

ahg.

BANNURMATH, C.J. &
KURIAN JOSEPH,J.

—————————

W.A.No.1021 of 2008

—————————-

JUDGMENT

7th August, 2009