Dismissed

M/S. Traco Cable Company Ltd. v. Regional Joint Labour Commissioner

Kerala HC17 Nov 2022WP(C)/15970/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/s. Traco Cable Company Ltd. challenging orders granting gratuity to two retired employees. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove a break in service and dismissed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; orders of the controlling and appellate authorities granting gratuity affirmed.

M/S. Traco Cable Company Ltd. Vs Regional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15981 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S. TRACO CABLE COMPANY LTD HEAD OFFICE 4TH FLOOR, HSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SANTHOSH KOSHY THOMAS.

¶8

BY ADVS. P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER KOLLAM, KAANKATHUMUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA 691 013.

¶11

2 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA 691 013

¶12

3 C.E.KUNJUMON RAWTHER, NAJUMA HOUSE, KOLLAKADAVU P.O.ALAPPUZHA 690 509

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.E.G.GORDEN SRI.S.K.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).15970/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 15981 OF 2019 and conctd. Case

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶20

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶21

WP(C) NO. 15970 OF 2019

¶22

PETITIONER/S:

¶23

M/S. TRACO CABLE COMPANY LTD. HEAD OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, HSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682036, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SANTHOSH KOSHY THOMAS

¶24

BY ADVS. P.BENNY THOMAS D.PREM KAMATH

¶25

RESPONDENT/S:

¶26

1 REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER KOLLAM, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA - 691013

¶27

2 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

¶28

KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA - 691013

¶29

3 SHRI T. C. VARGHESE MEETHERUVIL, KUTTUPUZHA P. O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689103

¶30

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).15981/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C) NO. 15981 OF 2019 and conctd. Case

¶33

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This order of mine shall dispose of two writ petitions preferred by the M/s Traco Cable Company Ltd. against the orders of the controlling authority and the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.15970 of 2019 is pertaining to non payment of gratuity to the 3^rd respondent namely Sri.T.C Varghese whereas W.P.(C) No.15981 of 2019 is related to Sri. C.E Kunjumon Rawther. Though the aforementioned party respondents had retired after having rendered almost 7 to 8 years of service and their wages were between Rs. 13500-14500/-. Petitioner stated to have offered Rs.55,000/- and odd amount as gratuity but party respondents insisted for payment of the gratuity for the period they rendered the service prior to the regularization. Petitioner denied the aforementioned claim, necessitating the party respondents to approach before the Controlling Authority. The authority allowed the claim preferred by the respondents ordering the payment of Rs.1,00,771/- and 1,81,576/- respectively. Both the orders in appeal have also been upheld.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Management submitted that the party respondents were recruited by the petitioner Company only in 2006, which is clear

¶38

¶39

WP(C) NO. 15981 OF 2019 and conctd. Case

¶40

from the appointment letter and had retired on 30.11.2013 and 30.6.2014 respectively. Their service prior to regularization was temporary and had not rendered as statutory service provided as per Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The finding of the appellate authority that the Company had not confirmed any break in service in respect of the party respondents neither here and there as the onu s was on par ty respondents. The party respondents agreed the terms and conditions of the appointment and thus they wer e estopped from t he claim of gratuity for the disputed period.

¶41

On the other hand, counsel for the party respondents countered the argument and submitted that onus was upon the management to place on record the muster roll to prove whether the party respondents had not rendered the statutory period of 240 days in a calendar year as per the provisions o f Section 2 A of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Orders of the authority are perfectly legal and justified and do not call for any different opinion.

¶42

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Section 2A provides that the service of the employee as continuous for a period that he/she had been in uninterrupted service including the service which could be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from

¶43

¶44

WP(C) NO. 15981 OF 2019 and conctd. Case

¶45

duty without leave. The petitioner Management has not placed on record any order to confirm any break in service of the party respondents. In other words, no documents like muster roll have been placed on record to prove the shortfall of 240 days of attendance. Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act envisage that the gratuity is payable to an employee on the termination of his/her employment after having rendered the continuous service for not less than five years on superannuation, on retirement or resignation or on death or disablement. The controlling and appellate authority duly appreciated the provisions of the Act and also righ tly put the blame on the m anagement of having not led any evidence in affirmative, thus entitling the party respondents to gratuity for the alleged period. Orders Exts.P2 and P3 in both the writ petitions are perfectly legal and justified and do not call for any interference. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

sab

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 15981 OF 2019 and conctd. Case

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15970/2019

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 24.08.2006 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2018 IN G.C.NO.01/2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2019 IN G.A.NO.07/2018 WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶55

WP(C) NO. 15981 OF 2019 and conctd. Case

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15981/2019

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶59

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 24.8.2006 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.1.2018 IN CC NO 53/2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.4.2019 IN GA NO 8/2018 WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

M/S. Traco Cable Company Ltd. v. Regional Joint Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Traco Cable Company Ltd. v. Regional Joint 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

K.S.Distillery, Vs State of Kerala

Steel Industrials Kerala Ltd. Vs the Enforcement Officer

Devicolam Distilleries Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Dm Education and Research Foundation, Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

M/S. Traco Cable Company Ltd. Vs Regional Joint Labour Commissioner

Ancy Beevi Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruvalla