Dismissed

Thankamany v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2021WP(C)/2485/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a lower appellate order that rejected an appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act due to limitation. Noting a delay of 311 days, the Court held that delays beyond 60 days cannot be condoned, rendering the petition devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the appeal.

Thankamany 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 A.M.BADAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.2485 OF 2021(I)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 THANKAMANY, AGED 64 YEARS W/O,LATE BALAN, ANIYERI HOUSE, VEERPAD (P.O) KANNUR -670704

¶8

2 MATHEW K.J, S/O,JOSEPH, 41/2019,KOLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY (PO), PAYAM, KANNUR – 670704

¶9

3 P.ANNAMMA, PODOOR HOUSE, KUDUMANGODE, VELIMANAM (PO), PAYAM VIA KANNUR-670704

¶10

4 MARY, PALAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY (PO), KANNUR 670704

¶11

5 T. MYMOONA , W/O. HUSSAIN, KALIYATH HOUSE, PuTHIYANGADI KEEZHPALLY (PO), KANNUR 670704

¶12

6 SOSAMMA, ALAMPALLY HOUSE , KEEZHPALLY (PO), KANNUR 670704

¶13

7 K.K. NABEESA,W/O. LATE AHAMMED, KARICHANVEEDU HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY (PO), KANNUR 670704

¶14

8 ZAINABA M., D/O. KUNHAMMED, MALAKKALAM HOUSE KEEZHPALLY (PO), KANNUR 670704

¶15

9 MARY A.T., W/. JOHN, MULLAMKUZHI HOUSE AMBAL,AKKANDY PO, VEERPAD, KANNUR 670704

¶16

10 OMANA, W/O. SOMAN, KAKKADATH HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY (PO), KANNUR 670704,

¶17

11 PATHUMMA C., W/O. T.K. MUHAMMED, THOTTUMUKKAM PO, PUTHIYANGAI, KEEZHPALLY (PO), KANNUR 670704

¶18

WP(C).No.2485 OF 2021 2

¶19

12 ELIAMMA C.J., CHERIYANOLICKAL HOUSE, AMBALAKKANDY , VEERPAD PO, KANNUR 670 704

¶20

BY ADVS. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SRI.JOSELAL GEORGE SRI.R.MAHESH MENON SRI.DEAGO JOHN K SHRI.AMAL DEV C.V.

¶21

RESPONDENT/S:

¶22

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001

¶23

2 REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 020

¶24

3 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KANNUR, CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 001

¶25

4 THE ADMINISTRATOR, ARALAM FARM, ARALAM PO, KANNUR 670704

¶26

5 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARALAM FARMING CORPORATION (KERALA) LIMITED, ARALAM FARM (P.O), KANNUR 670 704

¶27

SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WP(C).No.2485 OF 2021 3

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021

¶32

The appellate order rejecting the appeal filed under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PG Act) on the ground of limitation is impugned in this writ petition.

¶33

Heard both sides.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶35

that petitioners are illiterate employees and as such, they are not aware of the period of limitation for filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that some connected appeals are already allowed by the Appellate Authority. He drew my attention to the order at Ext.P2. However, the order at Ext.P2 is not an appellate order, but the same is the order of the first authority, i.e., Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶36

The prescribed period of limitation for preferring an appeal challenging the order of the Controlling Authority under the PG Act under Section 7(4) of the said Act is sixty days. The Appellate Authority can condone the delay of 60 days occurring after the prescribed period of limitation, provided sufficient cause

¶37

WP(C).No.2485 OF 2021 4

¶38

is shown. In the case in hand, the appeal was filed with the delay of 311 days and there is no provision to condone the delay of such

¶39

a period. The petition as such is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

ajt

WP(C).No.2485 OF 2021 5

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 – TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.06.2018 IN GRATUITY CASE NOS.162 OF 2006 & CONNECTED CASES

¶47

EXHIBIT P2 – TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2009 IN GRATUITY CASE NOS.149 OF 2006 & CONNECTED CASES

¶48

EXHIBIT P3 -TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NUMBERED AS G.A. NO.38 OF 2019 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2019

¶49

EXHIBIT P3(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.28 OF 2019 IN G.A. NO.38 OF 2019 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2019

¶50

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.11.2020 IN G.A.C. NO.38/2019 & CONNECTED CASES

Thankamany v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamany 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

Shanaz Shabeer Vs the Bank of Baroda

Shajahan Vs Hdfc Limited

P.Shyam Raju Vs the Authorized Officer

V.J.Sabu Vs the Authorised Officer

Usha.S Vs the Authorised Officer

Ceat Limited Vs State of Kerala