The Kerala High Court dismissed an original petition challenging an order granting gratuity to two employees. The court upheld the factual findings of the authorities that the employees completed the requisite five years of continuous service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930
OP.No. 18285 of 2001(B)
PETITIONER(S):
STAR ENTERPRISES ALIAS UNWEND MEDICALS
PVT. LTD.,
KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR(QUILON)
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN FOR R4 SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.No. 18285/01.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
Sdk+
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
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.
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.
sdk+
Sd/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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the employees had completed five years of continuous service to claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
STAR ENTERPRISES ALIAS UNWEND MEDICALS PVT. LTD.
THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM
THE DIST. LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM
G.JOHN
USHA JOHN
S.SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
