Dismissed

T.Sureshan v. Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kzd.

Kerala HC14 Mar 2008WA/2652/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal against the rejection of a writ petition where the first appellate authority had already dismissed the petitioner's appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The High Court held that no further direction could be issued as the matter was already decided.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was rejected. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an application before the first appellate authority for revival of the appeal, subject to a hearing.

T.Sureshan Vs Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kzd. — Kerala HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WA.No. 2652 of 2007

¶6

---------------------

¶7

( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.32773/2006 Dated 22/02/2007 AND ORDER IN R.P.NO. 410 of 2007 DATED 23.08.2007.)

¶8

APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER / PETITIONER

¶9

¶10

T.SURESHAN ORIENT TRADING COMPANY (MEENAKSHI TILE FACTORY) CHERUVANNUR, P.O.FEROK NELLIPUNAM HOUSE P.O. PALATH KOZHIKODE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER KOZHIKODE

¶15

(APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT)

¶16

DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOZHIKODE

¶17

(CONTROLLER UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT)

¶18

P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, PALLIKKATHODI HOUSE, POST PANTHEERENKAVE, CALICUT-19.

¶19

E.RAYIN, EDAKKAT HOUSE POST PANTHEERENKAVE, CALICUT-19.

¶20

WA.No. 2652 of 2007

¶21

E.DAMODARAN NAIR, ERATHIL HOUSE

¶22

POST PANTHEERENKAVE, CALICUT-19.

¶23

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. MEERA. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

¶24

ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶27

W.A. No. 2652 OF 2007

¶28

................................................................................... Dated this the 14^th March, 2008

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

H.L. Dattu, C.J.:

¶31

This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) 32773 of 2006 dated 22^nd February, 2007 and R.P.No.410 of 2007 dated 23^rd August, 2007.

¶32

Before we consider the contentions canvassed by the appellant, it would be useful to refer the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The first prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the first respondent [Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode (Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act) ] to consider Exhibit P2 series of appeal without any further delay. The second relief sought for is to stay execution of Ext.P1 series of awards pending a final decision on Ext. P2 appeal by the 1^st respondent.

¶33

After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of the Court that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected by the first appellate authority and therefore, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration of the Court.

¶34

The learned single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly taken into consideration the assertions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and has disposed of the Writ Petition . As we have already indicated , the

¶35

¶36

W.A. No. 2652 OF 2007

¶37

main prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the first appellate authority to decide the appeals filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. Since the appeal has already been decided/dismissed by the first appellate authority, no further direction can be issued by this Court. Keeping this aspect in view , in our opinion , the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the Writ Petition. We do not see any infirmity in the orders passed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the appeal filed against the impugned orders requires to be rejected and it is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, if he so desires to make appropriate application before the first appellate authority for revival of the appeal filed by him. If such an application is filed, the first appellate authority is requested to consider the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the lis.

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶40

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶41

T.Sureshan v. Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kzd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Sureshan v. Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kzd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.J.Joseph Vs Jai Singh & Another

V.Sudharsanan Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Mathew Vs Mathaichan Mathew

Sakeer Hussain Vs Manoj Kumar

Thiruvambady Devaswom,Thrissur Vs U.v.Jose

The Paramekkavu Devaswom Vs U.v.Jose