Mariyamma Baby v. P.M.Ferosh
Case brief
What is this about?
A contempt petition challenging an order rejecting the petitioner’s claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The court set aside a previous order and directed that parties be given a chance to lead evidence. The contempt petition was subsequently closed.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition closed after court set aside prior order and allowed parties to lead evidence.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 17TH BHADRA, 1945
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1778 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 10453/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
MARIYAMMA BABY, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.BABY KURUVILA, PALLITHANAM HOUSE, KOTTAMURY P.O, THRIKKODITHANAM, CHANGANASSERY, PIN - 686105
BY ADVS. C.S.AJITH PRAKASH T.K.DEVARAJAN ANCY THANKACHAN BABU M. NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN GOURI KAILASH
RESPONDENT/S:
P.M.FEROSH(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mariyamma Baby
- respondent
P.M.Ferosh
Coram
Amit Rawal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court