Dismissed

V.Balaraman Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/34729/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Lok Ayukta order dismissing a gratuity claim as barred by limitation. The Court held that an efficacious alternate remedy exists under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and therefore dismissed the petition with liberty to approach the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach the competent authority under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

V.Balaraman Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 34729 of 2009 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V. BALARAMAN PILLAI, S/O.VAITHYAPPAN PILLAI, T.C.NO.36/628, SABARI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, SRI.M.S.KALESH, SMT.M.C.SHIJIMOL, SRI.V.VINAY MENON.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CO-OPERATIVE BANK TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

3. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

4. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

R1, R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SWAMIDARSAN K.N. R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 34729 of 2009 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17/02/2000 SEEKING PAYMENT OF GRATUITY IN TERMS OF PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972.

¶21

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/10/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/05/1986 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/05/2001 OF LOK AYUKTA IN O.P. NO. 295, 496 AND 497/2000.

¶24

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 13/10/2006 IN O.P. NO.24577/2001 & 24578/2001.

¶25

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20/08/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANK.

¶26

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER REFUSING TO PAY GRATUITY AMOUNT.

¶27

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE O.P. NO.2307/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P9 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P10 COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P11 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 17/08/2009 IN COMPLAINT NOS.2305, 2307, 2309 AND 2311/2007.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶36

W.P.(C)No.34729 of 2009

¶37

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The short question that has been raised in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, who is an employee of a Cooperative Society, would be entitled to higher amounts than the ceiling that has been prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to for short as “the Act” only), if the Gratuity Scheme applicable to the Bank does not provide for a ceiling.

¶40

It appears that the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta under the provisions of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. However, the Lok Ayukta has been pleased to dismiss the application holding that the application of the petitioner is barred by limitation. The order of the Lok Ayukta has been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P11 and which has been impugned by the petitioner contending that his claim cannot be held to be hit by limitation.

¶41

To the contrary, the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the claim of the petitioner is stale and it is hit by laches and limitation. This is contested by the learned

¶42

W.P.(C)No.34729/09

¶43

:-2-:

¶44

counsel for the petitioner on the ground that representations made by the petitioner before the respondents had been pending all along and that therefore, the finding of limitation, when such representations are pending, is untenable. He further submits that it was only by an intimation in the year 2007 that the petitioner was told that they are not entitled for the benefits and that the petitioner had immediately moved the Lok Ayukta for reliefs.

¶45

I have heard Mr.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.George Poonthottam the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶46

It has been brought to my notice that there is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner provided by the statute, namely the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This Act provides, in the matter of payment of gratuity, to make an application to the competent authority under Section 7 of the Act, regarding any dispute as may arise as to the amount of gratuity payable to the employee under the Act. I think this is a more efficacious remedy that could be available to the petitioner rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶47

W.P.(C)No.34729/09

¶48

:-3-:

¶49

of India, where the jurisdiction is limited and I am, within the prescribed limits of my jurisdiction, unable to go into the questions of facts, especially which are contested.

¶50

In such circumstances, I dismiss this writ petition and grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 7 of the Act, who shall then consider and pass orders on such application, untrammelled by any of the proceedings or orders that have been made and issued by the Lok Ayukta, including Ext.P11 order. It is made clear that the question of limitation and all other issues are left open and that I have not considered any of the issues on merits and it would be within the power of the competent authority under the Act to make such orders in accordance with law on every issue that is raised before it. In the nature of circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶51

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

¶52

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶53

ami/11.11.16

¶54

//True copy//

¶55

P.A.to Judge

V.Balaraman Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Balaraman Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.P.Augustine Vs State

P.Vijayakumar Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality

Cochin Cadalas Private Ltd. Vs Chief Engineer

Sophia A.S Vs Union of India

Jabir V.S. Vs the Deputy General Manager (Hr)

B.v.Chandran Vs State of Kerala