Dismissed

Sarun G. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Nov 2021WP(C)/18029/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner proprietor challenged revenue recovery demand notices and earlier gratuity orders issued to workers. Court dismissed the petition as petitioner received notices and failed to act diligently or appeal within statutory timelines, finding no merit in claims of lack of hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

RECIJUVI N Caesar. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sarun G. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SARUN G.,AGED 45 YEARS S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, BHASKARA EXPORTS, SMITHALAYAM, DECENT JUNCTION P. O., KOLLAM - 691 577.

¶8

BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN BHANU THILAK S.R.PRASANTH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION, KANKATHUMUKKU, KOLLAM - 691 013.

¶12

3 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER OFFICE, KANKATHUMUKKU, KOLLAM - 691013.

¶13

4 DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KOLLAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, TALUK KACHERY, KOLLAM - 691001.

¶14

*5 ADDL.R5.ABIDA, W/O ALIYARUKUNJU, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, THRIKOVILVATTOM, ALUMMOODU PO, KKOLLAM - 691577

¶15

6 ADDL. MARIYAM BEEVI, VILAYIL VEEDU, PEROOR, KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM 691501

¶16

7 ADDL. SUSHEELA, MUKKALUVILA VEEDU, CHERIYELA, ALUMMOODU PO, KOLLAM 691 577

¶17

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..2..

¶18

*8 ADDL. OMANA AMMA, CHARUVILA, PUTHENVEEDU, KERALAPURAM, CHANDANATHOPP PO, KOLLAM 691004 (ADDL.R5 TO R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R5 TO R8 VIDE ORDER DATED 09.11.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/21 OF W.P.C NO.18029/2021)

¶19

R1-R4 BY GP SRI.KM FAISAL R5-R8 BY SMT.GIRIJA K GOPAL

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..3..

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner, the proprietor of 'Bhaskara Exports' has filed this writ petition, challenging Exts.P5 to P8 demand notices issued by the 4^th respondent Tahsildar pursuant to Exts.P1 to P4 orders issued by the 3^rd respondent Deputy Labour Commissioner granting gratuity to additional respondents under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short).

¶24

The petitioner states that Exts.P1 to P4 orders were passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Controlling Authority) without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also contends that since he was facing financial stringency and was working abroad, he could not file any appeal against Exts.P1 to P4 orders. While so, Exts.P5 to P8 revenue

¶25

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..4..

¶26

recovery demand notices were issued to the petitioner to recover the amounts granted in Exts.P1 to P4 orders. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition to quash Exts.P5 to P8 revenue recovery demand notices or in the alternative to allow the petitioner to pay Rs.8,23,394/- in equal monthly installments.

¶27

This Court by order dated 10.09.2021 stayed the recovery of amounts pursuant to Exts P1 to P4 orders and directed the petitioner to implead the petitioners in Exts.P1 to P4 proceedings. Accordingly, interlocutory application was filed to implead the petitioners in Exts.P1 to P4 and the same was allowed and Smt.Girija K.Gopal has entered appearance on behalf of the additional respondents and has filed a counter affidavit. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by additional respondents 5 to 8, it is stated that the petitioner had sufficient knowledge of the proceedings before the

¶28

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..5..

¶29

Controlling Authority. It is stated that the petitioner was well aware of the postings of the cases before the Controlling Authority as evident from his own statement in the writ petition. It is stated that, as against Exts.P1 to P4 orders, Exts.R8(a) to R8(d) and R8(f) statutory appeals were filed by the petitioner before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kollam on 19.02.2019. Since the petitioner did not make pre-deposit of the amount as mandated by the second proviso to Section 7 (7) of the Act and the required legal benefit stamps, the office of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner by Exts.R8(g) to R8(k) communications, directed the petitioner to cure the defects in filing the appeal within 7 days. The petitioner did not take any steps to deposit the amount and to produce the legal benefit stamp and consequently the Appellate Authority by Exts.R8(l) to R8(p) intimated the petitioner that the appeals have

¶30

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..6..

¶31

been rejected. The Controlling Authority issued Ext.R8(v) and similar notices to the petitioner to show cause as to why the gratuity amount granted in Exts.P1 to P4 orders along with interest shall not be recovered by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings. The additional respondents state that in spite of all these, the petitioner failed to pay the gratuity granted. Accordingly, the Controlling Authority issued Ext.R8(w) and similar requisition letters to the Tahsildar to initiate recovery proceedings and pursuant thereto Exts.P5 to P8 demand notices were issued to the petitioner for recovery of the gratuity granted to the additional respondents by Exts.P1 to P4 orders.

¶32

The specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he was not aware of the proceedings before the Controlling Authority under the Act and that though he received notice from the 3^rd respondent to

¶33

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..7..

¶34

appear on 23.10.2018, he did not get further notice from the said authority regarding subsequent postings. He states that he could not file any appeal against the said order as he was working abroad. He also states that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic scenario, he could not come back to Kerala.

¶35

Going by the averments of the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it could be seen that he had received notice to appear before the Controlling Authority on 23.10.2018. According to the petitioner, since he was abroad he could not appear on that date. Since the Controlling Authority had issued notice to the petitioner in the proceedings initiated by the additional respondents under the Act, it was up to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings before the said authority. The petitioner was not vigilant and diligent in prosecuting the case before the 3^rd respondent. The

¶36

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..8..

¶37

petitioner cannot, therefore, contend that Exts.P1 to P4 orders are passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard or that the order was passed behind his back. The further contention of the petitioner that he could not prefer an appeal against Exts.P1 to P4 orders is also not correct. From Exts.R8(a) to R8(d), it can be seen that the petitioner had preferred appeals against Exts.P1 to P4 orders and he has singed those appeal memorandums dated 19.02.2019 and he cannot feign ignorance of the appeals. His averment in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that since he was working abroad he could not file any appeal against Exts.P1 to P4 orders is therefore incorrect. The contention based on Covid-19 pandemic scenario is also incorrect as the outbreak of the pandemic was after November 2019. From Exts.R8(v) and R8(w) documents, it is evident that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings to recover the

¶38

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..9..

¶39

amounts granted in Exts.P1 to P4 by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings.

¶40

Exts.P1 to P4 orders are dated 20.12.2018. Even

¶41

after lapse of about 3 years, the amounts due to the additional respondents under the Act, a welfare legislation is not paid. From Exts.P1 to P4 orders, it can be seen that the additional respondents were working in the establishment of the petitioner from 1972-1974. The petitioner approached this Court without impleading the additional respondents to whom the amounts are due as per Exts.P1 to P4 orders. Only as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner impleaded the additional respondents 5 to 8. The entire facts are not forthcoming from the averments in the writ petition. There is no merit in the writ petition and I find no reason whatsoever to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶42

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..10..

¶43

India to entertain this writ petition.

¶44

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There

¶45

will be no order as to costs.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶48

SB/19/11/2021

¶49

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..11..

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18029/2021

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 IN
	GC 155/2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶53

Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 IN
	GC 156/2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶54

Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE O	RDER DATED 21.12.2018 IN
	GC 157/2018 OF THE	3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE O	RDER DATED 24.12.2018 IN
	GC 158/2018 OF THE	3RD RESPONDENT.

¶55

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY	OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
29.01.2021	ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY	OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
29.01.2021	ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶56

Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
	29.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶57

Exhibit P8 TRUE	COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
29.01	.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶58

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶59

EXT.R8A	A TRUE COPY OF THE	APPEAL DTD. 19.2.19 FILED
	BY THE PETITIONER	AGAINST EXTS.P1 ORDER
	PASSED BY THE 3RD	RESPONDENT IN
	GCNO.155/2018

¶60

EXT.R8B	A TRUE COPY OF THE	APPEAL DTD. 19.2.19 FILED
	BY THE PETITIONER	AGAINST EXTS.P2 ORDER
	PASSED BY THE 3RD	RESPONDENT IN
	GCNO.156/2018
EXT.R8C	A TRUE COPY OF THE	APPEAL DTD. 19.2.19 FILED

¶61

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..12..

¶62

	BY THE PASSED GCNO.15	PETITIONER AGAINST EXTS.P3 ORDER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN 7/2018
EXT.R8D	A TRUE BY THE PASSED GCNO.15	COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 19.2.19 FILED PETITIONER AGAINST EXTS.P4 ORDER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN 8/2018
EXT.R8E	A TRUE G.C.NO.	COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.24.12.2018 IN 159/2018
EXT.R8F	A TRUE BEFORE COMMISS	COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 19.2.19 THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR IONER, KOLLAM
EXT.R8G	A TRUE ISSUED COMMISS APPEAL	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 3.4.19 BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR IONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF AGAINST GC 155/2018
EXT.R8H	A TRUE ISSUED COMMISS APPEAL	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 3.4.19 BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR IONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF AGAINST GC 156/2018
EXT.R8I	A TRUE ISSUED COMMISS APPEAL	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 3.4.19 BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR IONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF AGAINST GC 157/2018
EXT.R8J	A TRUE ISSUED COMMISS APPEAL	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 3.4.19 BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR IONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF AGAINST GC 158/2018
EXT.R8K	A TRUE ISSUED COMMISS APPEAL	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 3.4.19 BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR IONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF AGAINST GC 159/2018
EXT.R8L	A TRUE 23.10.1	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 9 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR

¶63

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..13..

¶64

	COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF APPEAL AGAINST GC 155/2018
EXT.R8M	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 23.10.19 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF APPEAL AGAINST GC 156/2018
EXT.R8N	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 23.10.19 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF APPEAL AGAINST GC 157/2018
EXT.R8O	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 23.10.19 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF APPEAL AGAINST GC 158/2018
EXT.R8P	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 1.11.19 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF APPEAL AGAINST GC 159/2018
EXT.R8Q	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.5.19 FOR RECOVERY OF GRATUITY SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER RULE 19 OF THE PAYMENT OF GRAUTITY RULES
EXT.R8R	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.5.19 FOR RECOVERY OF GRATUITY SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER RULE 19 OF THE PAYMENT OF GRAUTITY RULES
EXT.R8S	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.5.19 FOR RECOVERY OF GRATUITY SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER RULE 19 OF THE PAYMENT OF GRAUTITY RULES
EXT.R8T	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.5.19 FOR RECOVERY OF GRATUITY SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER RULE 19 OF THE PAYMENT OF GRAUTITY RULES

¶65

WP(C) NO. 18029 OF 2021 ..14..

¶66

EXT.R8U A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.5.19 FOR RECOVERY OF GRATUITY SUBMITTED BY SMT.ABIDA, THE APPLICANT IN GC 159/2018 UNDER RULE 19 OF THE PAYMENT OF GRAUTITY RULES EXT.R8V A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.31.1.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GC 155/2018

¶67

EXT.R8W A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DATED 27.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GC155/2018

Sarun G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarun G. 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

Sindhu Joseph Vs State of Kerala & Another

Bijoy Geevarghese Vs Shabeer.a.

Jameela Vs Ibrahim

K.X.Martin & Others Vs K.S.E.B. & Another

Abdulrasak Vs the District Collector

Prasanna Babu @ Babu Vs Aliarkutty