Dismissed

A.O. Anto v. Chenthamara P

Kerala HC22 Dec 2022WP(C)/22059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging the appellate order under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. The court held the appellate authority rightly determined the service start date based on welfare board identity card evidence and found no force in the claim regarding unadjusted advances. Consequently, the order was deemed legal and justified without interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the appellate order under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 was dismissed.

A.O. Anto Vs Chenthamara P — 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 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22059 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.O. ANTO
AGED 63 YEARS
SON OF OUSEPH, M/S. AJITH AGENCIES, TC VIII-178,
ANCHANGADI, EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680001

¶8

BY ADVS.
N.M.MADHU
P.P.HARRIS
C.S.RAJANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CHENTHAMARA P SON OF PAZHANIYANDI, KOCHAN HOUSE, PANAYAMPARA, KUNISSERI P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 678681

¶11

2 CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003

¶12

3APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
1972
REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682030

¶13

BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C) NO. 22059 OF 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Order dated 26.08.2021 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Thrissur and of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner dated 19.05.2022 under the payment of the gratuity Act are under challenge in the present petition.

¶19

Respondent No.1–Chenthamara initiated the

¶20

proceedings of non-payment of the gratuity in respect of an employee rendered more than twenty year of service before the Controlling Authority on the ground that he joined service on 20.01.2009 and left the service on 30.08.2019 on account of physical ailment and other family issues. An amount of Rs.88,013/- as advance was taken and a sum of Rs.3,324/- as office expense. Though the Controlling Authority on consideration of the matter vide order dated 26.08.2021 Ext.P1 allowed the petition and ordered the employer to pay a sum of Rs.1,55,746/with interest at the rate of 10% from 02.10.2019.

¶21

Petitioner preferred a Gratuity Appeal No.9/2021 which has been partly allowed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶22

WP(C) NO. 22059 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

the petitioner submitted that both the authorities failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 availed the advance amount which was liable to be deducted, but no order in this regard has been made. Even otherwise, evidence available on behalf of the 1^st respondent was insufficient to form an opinion that employee was in an employment and completed five years of continues service. 1^st respondent failed to lead any evidence in support of the case, in the absence of the same, claim before the Controlling Authority ought to have been dismissed.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit.

¶26

Before the Controlling Authority, respondent No.1 brought on record certain material to establish that he had been in continues employment. The material brought on record ie., Ext.A1 welfare membership card reflected that the membership was given on 01.04.2009 but his case was that he joined on 03.03.2003. Controlling Authority on the aforementioned basis allowed the claim noticing that the respondent No.1 had service from March,

¶27

WP(C) NO. 22059 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

2003 to September, 2019 ie., 16 years and 6 months. Appellate Authority in the absence of any material except oral testimony partly allowed the appeal by treating the employment of the respondent No.1 with effect from 15.03.1999 on the ground that the respondent No.1 failed to prove on record regarding his employment with effect from 03.03.2003. There is no force in the argument that the evidence has been misappreciated as the identity card Ext.A1 had been issued by the Shops and Commercial Establishment Employee Welfare Board. No contrary evidence has been placed on record regarding the advance amount of Rs.88,013/- or Rs.3,324/- as office expense. In the absence, the amount could not have been ordered to be adjusted. Order of the Appellate Authority is perfectly legal and justified and do not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 22059 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22059/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2021
IN G.C. NO.112/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR
Exhibit P1 (a)TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2022
IN G.A. NO. 9 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF THE
REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P2 (a)TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2

A.O. Anto v. Chenthamara P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.O. Anto v. Chenthamara P

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

Normandy Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Cassanova Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Silver Castle Resorts (Pvt.) Ltd.

Rosamma @ Rose Lilly Vs the Commissioner Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board

Seetha K Vs the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

Philo Vs the Commissioner