Allowed

T Radhakrishnan v. Indian Rare Earth Limited

Kerala HC3 Mar 2023WP(C)/4259/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted a writ commanding the employer to disburse the gratuity amount awarded by the controlling authority within four weeks, rejecting the employer's plea of withholding funds pending the outcome of a pending appeal. The Court also directed payment of an additional sum arising from wage revision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to disburse ₹65,252 awarded by the controlling authority and an additional ₹9,816 due on account of wage revision within four weeks.

T Radhakrishnan Vs Indian Rare Earth Limited — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RDDAY OF MARCH 2023 / 12TH PHALGUNA,1944
WP(C) NO. 4259 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

T RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 64 YEARS
(RETIRED AS TRADESMAN C, INDIAN RARE EARTH LTD)
S/O R THANKAPPAN NAIR RESIDING AT SREEVIHAR,
ELOOR NORTH UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683501
BY ADVS.
C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
T.K.DEVARAJAN
M.B.SOORI
BABU M.
ANCY THANKACHAN
NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN
GOURI KAILASH
HAARIS MOOSA
KRISHNENDU.D

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1INDIAN RARE EARTH LIMITED
RARE EARTH DIVISION UDYOGAMANDAL
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683501,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANGER HEAD, RED
2CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT
OF GRATUITY ACT (CENTRAL)
ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL
OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, PIN – 682030

¶9

BY ADV M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶10

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON03.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C). No.4259 of 2023

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petitioner, a retired workman in the category of Tradesman of the Indian Rare Earth Ltd., the 1st respondent in this writ petition, had attained superannuation on 31.11.2018. The petitioner asserts that while computing the retirement benefits, the respondents did not reckon the period from 01.06.1991 to 31.05.1993 as a qualifying service for the purpose of calculating gratuity benefits. This stand was taken by the respondents on the premise that the period during which the petitioner had worked as an apprentice trainee cannot be treated as a qualifying service for the purpose of computing gratuity. In the said circumstance, the petitioner approached the controlling authority, and an award was passed directing payment of a sum of Rs.65,252/- together with lawful interest.

¶15

The award passed by the Controlling Authority was taken up in appeal and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the controlling authority. The petitioner contends that in the meantime, on the strength of a binding settlement, the wage was revised, the benefit of which was extended to the petitioner as well. Though the management initially released the gratuity amount, an order was issued

¶16

W.P.(C). No.4259 of 2023

¶17

¶18

retaining the gratuity amount already paid. The petitioner asserts that the management preferred W.P.(C) No.7482 of 2022, challenging the orders passed by the controlling authority and the Appellate Authority, but the said writ petition stands dismissed by Ext.P4 judgment. The petitioner asserts that the said judgment has become final. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶19

i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to disburse the withheld amount of Rs.65,252,/-, eligible to the petitioner consequent to the wage revision and this difference in gratuity to the tune of Rs.9,816/- together with interest within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶20

ii. To declare that the respondent Management has no legal right to withheld the amount of Rs.75,068/- legally due to the petitioner.

¶21

I have heard Sri. Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel, who

¶22

reiterated the contentions of the petitioner.

¶23

Sri. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶24

1st respondent, submitted that the respondent intends to challenge the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7482 of 2022. According to the learned counsel, the 1st respondent has valid contentions to

¶25

W.P.(C). No.4259 of 2023

¶26

¶27

raise, and the reliefs sought are not liable to be granted.

¶28

5. I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶29

The controlling authority, after considering the entire facts and

¶30

circumstances, ordered the 1st Respondent to pay an amount of ₹65252 together with simple interest at the rate of 10% from 30/11/2018. The above award has been confirmed by the appellate authority. The records also reveal that the 1st respondent has deposited the award amount before the controlling authority. While proceedings were pending before the jurisdictional authorities, the wage structure of the workmen in the 1st respondent was revised with effect from 1/7/2018 based on a settlement entered into between the management and the workers. As a consequence, the last pay of the Petitioner got revised to ₹65059/. It is a case of the Petitioner that the total gratuity payable was re-computed by the management, and the balance amount to be paid to the Petitioner was arrived at ₹1,22,697. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the management has retained the sum of ₹65252/- awarded by the controlling authority and disbursed only Rs.57,445/. I find from Ext.P4 judgment rendered by this Court that this Court had refused to interfere with the award passed by the

¶31

W.P.(C). No.4259 of 2023

¶32

¶33

controlling authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, and in that view of the matter, the 1st respondent cannot be heard to contend that the amount as ordered by the Controlling Authority shall not be disbursed.

¶34

The contention of the 1st respondent that they intend to challenge the judgment rendered by the single judge on 25/8/2022 and that the gratuity amount due to the petitioner was retained for the purpose does not appeal to me. There is no justification on the part of the first Respondent in not disbursing the amount of ₹65252/- ordered by the controlling authority and payable to the petitioner herein. The Petitioner asserts that he is also entitled to a sum of ₹ 9816/- due on account of the wage revision and the difference in gratuity. If the said amount is due as borne out from the records maintained by the first Respondent, the same shall also be disbursed to the Petitioner.

¶35

Resultantly, this Writ petition can be disposed of by ordering as under:

¶36

a) There will be a direction to the 1st Respondent to disburse the sum of ₹65252/as determined by the controlling authority within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

W.P.(C). No.4259 of 2023

¶38

¶39

b) If as per the records maintained by the 1st respondent, a

¶40

sum of Rs.9816/- due on account of the wage revision and the

¶41

difference in gratuity, the said amount shall also be disbursed

¶42

within four weeks.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

NS

¶47

W.P.(C). No.4259 of 2023

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4259/2023

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PAYMENT OF
GRATUITY DATED 30/09/2020 SENT TO THE
EMPLOYER WITH A COPY TO THE PETITIONER .
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY IN GA NO 39/02/2021 /B6 DATED
09/07/2021
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO.7482/2022 DATED
08/06/2022 WITHOUT ITS ANNEXURES
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
7482/2022 DATED 25/08/2022
Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19/09/2022 TO
CONCERNED OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶52

RESPONDENT(S)EXHIBITSNIL

T Radhakrishnan v. Indian Rare Earth Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Radhakrishnan v. Indian Rare Earth Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph George Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation - Epfo

Joseph.M.L Vs Maintenance Tribunal (Revenue Divisional Officer)

Force India Management Services & Securities, Vs the Labour Commissioner

Usman Theruvath Kunhumon Vs Union of India

Sajamon M.V. Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Muhammed Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority