Remanded

Mar Athanasius Memorial Higher Secondary School, v. Appellate Authority [Labour Commissioner]

Kerala HC11 Oct 2021WP(C)/18061/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found that the petitioner did not receive proper notice of hearing dates beyond a specific cutoff, causing a denial of opportunity to be heard. The court set aside the appellate authority's dismissal order, granted the petitioner a fresh hearing, and directed the authority to pass a fresh order within a month.

What did the court decide?

The dismissal order of the Appellate Authority is set aside; the writ petition is allowed; the matter is remanded for a fresh hearing on 26/10/2021 with a fresh order to be passed within one month.

Mar Athanasius Memorial Higher Secondary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 18061 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MAR ATHANASIUS MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 308, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SR. YOHANNA, AGED 63 YEARS, D/O. MATHEW VARGHESE, RESIDING AT ST. MARY'S CONVENT, PUTHENCRUZ P.O, PUTHENCRUZ, PIN-682 308 BY ADV SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 APPELLATE AUTHORITY [LABOUR COMMISSIONER] PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030

¶10

2 SMT. ANNAM P.V, W/O. RAJU, OLIKKAL HOUSE, THALACODE P.O, PIN-682 314, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE MANU VYASAN PETER

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SABEENA .P ISMAIL (GP)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 18061 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶17

................................................

¶18

W.P.(C) NO. 18061 OF 2021

¶19

…........................................

¶20

Dated this the 11th day of october, 2021

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is an unaided Higher Secondary English Medium High School and the 2^nd respondent is a teacher in the said school.

¶23

A complaint was filed by the 2^nd respondent

¶24

before the Controlling Authority under the

¶25

payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 alleging that

¶26

the 2^nd respondent had not been paid any gratuity. By Ext.P3 order dated 13/4/2019,

¶27

the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act allowed the application and directed the

¶28

writ petitioner to pay gratuity of

¶29

Rs.3,11,631/-, along with the interest at the rate of 10%.

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO. 18061 OF 2021

¶32

Petitioner preferred an appeal before

¶33

the 1^st respondent. By the impugned order Ext.P7 dated 25/3/2021, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P7 order was issued without granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Inviting my attention to the observations of the Appellate Authority that the appellant had not turned up for hearing on

¶35

7/1/2021, 4/2/2021 and 4/3/2021 and that,

¶36

thereafter, on a consideration of the order of

¶37

the Controlling Authority, by itself the

¶38

Appellate Authority found no reason to

¶39

interfere. The learned counsel submitted that the dates of posting mentioned in the order

¶40

were never informed either to the petitioner or to the representative.

¶41

WP(C) NO. 18061 OF 2021

¶42

I have heard Adv.Saji Varghese-the

¶43

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶44

Adv.P.B.Krishnan-the learned counsel for the

¶45

2^nd respondent and Adv.Sabeena.P.Ismail-the learned Government Pleader.

¶46

respondent submitted that petitioner had been granted sufficient opportunity of hearing and that there was no reason to even assume that

¶47

an opportunity of hearing was not granted. Failure to appear before the Appellate Authority on the day it was posted for hearing cannot be assumed to be a failure to grant sufficient opportunity of hearing.

¶48

On a consideration of the submissions made

¶49

by the counsel as mentioned above, I am of the view that, no prejudice would be caused to the 2^nd respondent, if a fresh opportunity of

¶50

hearing is granted to the writ petitioner. Admittedly, there was no representation on the

¶51

WP(C) NO. 18061 OF 2021

¶52

¶53

date posted for hearing. However, Ext.P6 shows that all cases posted on 17/12/2020 were adjourned by notification without specifying the next posting date. Ext.P6 was the intimation sent from the office of the 1^st respondent. Respondents have no case that fresh intimation was given about the posting on 7/1/2021 to the petitioner. If intimation of 7/1/2021 was not given to the petitioner, then obviously petitioner could not have known the posting on the subsequent days of 4/2/2021 or 4/3/2021. Thus this is an instance of violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶54

Though the Appellate Authority had

¶55

granted opportunity of hearing, since the writ petitioner is prejudiced on account of the

¶56

failure to be intimated of the posting after 17/12/2020 it failed to appear before the Appellate Authority on the date fixed for

¶57

¶58

WP(C) NO. 18061 OF 2021

¶59

hearing. In view of the above consideration I am of the opinion that Ext.P7 is liable to be set aside.

¶60

However, the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent shall appear before the 1^st respondent on 26/10/2021 and the parties shall

¶61

be heard on the said date and fresh order shall be passed by the 1^st respondent as expeditiously as possible in a time bound manner at any rate within a period of one month from the said date of appearance. The petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent shall treat this judgment as sufficient intimation of the date for appearance.

¶62

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

AJM

¶67

WP(C) NO. 18061 OF 2021

¶68

¶69

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18061/2021

¶70

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶71

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND RESPONDEN DELAY CONDONATION	APPLICATION FILED BY T TOGETHER WITH THE PETITION.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 115/2018 FILED BY	OBJECTION IN GC NO. THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE IN GC NO. 115/201	ORDER DATED 30.04.2019 8.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE FILED UNDER SECTI OF GRATUITY ACT,	APPEAL MEMORANDUM ON 7(7) OF THE PAYMENT 1972.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER P4.	DEMAND DRAFT PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE SENT FROM RESPONDENT DATED	PRINT OUT OF THE THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST 14.12.2020.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	ORDER OF THE 1ST 25.3.2021.

¶72

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶73

AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Mar Athanasius Memorial Higher Secondary School, v. Appellate Authority [Labour Commissioner]

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mar Athanasius Memorial Higher Secondary School, v. Appellate Authority [Labour Commissioner]

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

Sreejith K.V. Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Esaf (Evangelical Social Action Forum) Society, Vs the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise

Mohanan Nair Vs Union of India

Kochurani Antony Vs Authorised Officer

A. Ramesh Kumar Vs Chief Manager/Authorized Officer

Mfar Real Tours Private Limited, Vs Union of India