Disposed

K.a.Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2024WP(C)/11161/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

School Manager challenged a revenue recovery notice for unpaid gratuity awarded by the Controlling Authority, contending payment was made and receipted. The 5th respondent alleged the receipt was forged. The Court found the factum of payment could not be decided in Article 226 proceedings and directed the petitioner to seek a declaration in civil court, suspending recovery for three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; revenue recovery proceedings suspended for three months to enable petitioner to approach the competent civil court for a declaration that the gratuity amount was paid.

K.a.Jose Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11161 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.A.JOSE, AGED 73 YEARS
S/O.ANTHONY, KARIPPAYIL HOUSE,
 MANAGER, KFT PUBLIC SCHOOL, KUTTIAD P.O.,
CHALAKKUDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 724.
BY ADVS.
C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT, PALAYAM,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE P.O.,
 THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 003.
3REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 003
4DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
(AUTHORITY, PAYMENT, GRATUITY),
CHEMBUKKAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 020
5K.D.JACOB, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, KARIPPAYI HOUSE, ANDHRAKKAMPADOM,
 MOTHIRAKKANNI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 724.
BY ADVS.
M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN
K.SUNIL
ALEENA MARIA JOSE
M.ARDRA KRISHNAN
KRISHNENDU.D

¶10

SRI. DHEERAJ A S (GP)

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 11161 OF 2021 2

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Petitioner is the Manager of the KFT Public School, Kuttiad P.O., Chalakkudy. He has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P4 notice issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Thrissur (the respondent No.4), who is also the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, informing the petitioner that unless the amount of Rs.1,14,231/- (Rupees One lakh fourteen thousand two hundred and thirty one only) found payable to the 5^th respondent in Gratuity Case No.G.C.178/2018 before the Controlling Authority, is paid within seven days of receipt of that notice, revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated to recover the said amount.

¶15

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said amount had been paid to the 5^th respondent and in respect of which, the 5^th respondent had issued Ext.P2 receipt, following which Ext.P3 letter had been issued by the petitioner to the Controlling Authority stating that the amount had been paid.

¶16

The 5^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the receipt of payment and contended that Ext.P2 receipt is a forged document.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 11161 OF 2021 3

¶18

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, producing therewith the bank statements of the family Trust (which runs the school) and also the audited account statement of the school to show that the amount, in respect of which Ext.P2 receipt was issued by the 5^th respondent, had actually been withdrawn and paid to the 5^th respondent. It is submitted that the 5^th respondent is also a member of the family Trust which runs the school and there are several disputes regarding the management of the Trust and the 5^th respondent is in the habit of unnecessarily raising complaints against the present management of the Trust on account of the said disputes. It is submitted that the present attempt of the 5^th respondent is also to discredit the management of the Trust by stating that they have produced a false receipt before this Court.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent, I am of the view that, it may not be possible for this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to determine as to whether the amounts payable to the 5^th respondent in terms of the orders issued by the Controlling Authority have actually been paid to him or not. This Court is also

¶20

WP(C) NO. 11161 OF 2021 4

¶21

not in a position to determine as to whether Ext.P2 receipt is actually a forged document, as alleged by the 5^th respondent. Since the petitioner is asserting that the amounts due under the order of the controlling Authority has already been paid to the 5^th respondent, I am of the view that the dispute in this case can be resolved only by permitting the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for a declaration that the amounts due in terms of the order of the Controlling Authority has actually been paid by the petitioner. In order to enable the petitioner to approach the civil court and seek appropriate interim reliefs, the revenue recovery proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner shall remain suspended, for a period of three months. I make it clear that no provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act or the Revenue Recovery Act will be seen as barring such a suit.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

GOPINATH P.
JUDGE

¶25

ajt

¶26

WP(C) NO. 11161 OF 2021 5

¶27

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11161/2021

¶28

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P6`	`The true copy of the bank account passbook` `for the relevant period maintained with the` `Catholic Syrian Bank, Kuttikad Branch`
`Exhibit P7`	`The true copy of audited balance sheet of KFT` `Public School, Kuttikad dated 25.04.2021`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.2.2021` `ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ENCLOSING EXT P2` `RECEIPT AND POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPTS.`
`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.1.2021 IN` `GC NO.178/2018 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT` `DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO` `THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.3.2021` `GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT` `ALONG WITH POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED` `23.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE` `PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.2.2021` `ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE` `FACTUM OF ACCEPTANCE OF AMOUNT COVERED UNDER` `EXT P1 ORDER`

K.a.Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Jose 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

Kerala State Housing Board Vs Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission

Varadarajan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Koliyacode Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan A.K. Vs State of Kerala

I.G.Paul Vs Indian Bank

Bindu Anish, Vs the Authorised Officer