Disposed

Global Building Materials, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2024WP(C)/9566/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An employer challenged a Deputy Labour Commissioner's order directing payment of gratuity to an employee, contending lack of effective hearing after new documents were admitted and orders reserved on the same day without the employer present. The High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for further evidence and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 gratuity order set aside; matter remitted to 2nd respondent Deputy Labour Commissioner for evidence and argument by both parties.

Global Building Materials, Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9566 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GLOBAL BUILDING MATERIALS, OPPOSITE LF CONVENT, MAMMIYOOR, GURUVAYOOR P.O THRISSUR- 680101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.G VASU

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN SANAL C.S JISSMON A KURIAKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNEMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN – 695 001.

¶12

2DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
THRISSUR, PIN – 680 020.

¶13

3SUDHA VINU,
W/O VINU, KARUVALLI HOUSE,
KOORIPARAMBU ROAD, ARTHAT P O
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 521.

¶14

BY ADV

¶15

JOSEPH M.P.
ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON
19.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.9566 of 2023

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of July , 2024

¶21

The petitioner is the Managing Partner of Global Building materials. The 3^rd respondent claims to be an employee of the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent filed an application under the Gratuity Act, 1972, seeking payment of the gratuity. The 2^nd respondent – Deputy Labour Commissioner allowed the gratuity application as per Ext.P4 and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,03,846/with interest at the rate of 10% from 01.04.2022.

¶22

The petitioner states that the petitioner has strong

¶23

legal grounds to oppose the gratuity application. Firstly, the petitioner has at no point of time engaged 10 or more employees in the establishment. Therefore, the petitioner’s establishment would not come within the purview of the payment of the Gratuity Act. Secondly, the 3^rd respondent is not a regular employee of the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent would not satisfy the definition of the employee / workman, to

¶24

W.P.(C) No.9566 of 2023

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

claim gratuity.

¶27

The petitioner would further contend that the 3^rd respondent has started to work for the petitioner only since 2016. The Deputy Labour Commissioner has granted benefit treating the 3^rd respondent as joining the establishment in the year 2010.

¶28

As regards not opting for an appellate remedy, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was denied opportunity of effective hearing and there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, Ext.P4 impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶29

Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 3^rd respondent and vehemently opposed the writ petition. On behalf of the 3^rd respondent, it is submitted that the petitioner was actively participating in the proceedings before the 2^nd respondent-Deputy Labour Commissioner. The petitioner filed objections before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The petitioner had all the opportunity to adduce evidence and examine witnesses. The petitioner did not opt to do so.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.9566 of 2023

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

The Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent

¶33

further submits that the present writ petition is only a method to delay and defeat payment of gratuity amount legally due to the 3^rd respondent. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed with cost.

¶34

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

The petitioner would contend that the petitioner has not engaged 10 or more employees at any point of time. I find that an objection regarding non-applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act was raised by the petitioner in the objections filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The Deputy Labour Commissioner rejected the said argument stating that the petitioner has not produced any materials to establish the same.

¶36

Similarly, the petitioner had a case that the 3^rd respondent had started to work in the establishment only

¶37

W.P.(C) No.9566 of 2023

¶38

: 5 :

¶39

from the year 2016. The Deputy Labour Commissioner rejected that contention also stating that the petitioner has not produced any materials. It is to be noted that the petitioner was attending the proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner promptly.

¶40

A perusal of Ext.P3 proceedings sheet would show that on 06.09.2022, there was no sitting of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. On 01.11.2022, the 3^rd respondent was present and the petitioner was represented. The petitioner sought time to file objection. The matter was thereupon adjourned to 13.12.2022. On 13.12.2022, the petitioner was present and filed the objection, which was taken into files.

¶41

Next posting of the case was on 03.01.2023, on which date the 3^rd respondent was present and the petitioner was absent. The 3^rd respondent filed two documents which was marked as A1 and A2. Thereafter, the Deputy Labour Commissioner took up the case for orders. It is therefore evident that on the same day when two new documents were

¶42

W.P.(C) No.9566 of 2023

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

produced by the 3^rd respondent, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has reserved the order in the absence of the petitioner or the petitioner’s representatives. No effective hearings are seen conducted on 03.01.2023.

¶45

In the afore circumstances, the petitioner should be permitted to contest the matter on merit and should be given opportunity to adduce evidence, if any.

¶46

Ext.P4 order is therefore set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent-Deputy Labour Commissioner. The 2^nd respondent is directed to give reasonable time to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent to adduce any further evidence and to argue the matter.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

AMR

W.P.(C) No.9566 of 2023

¶53

: 7 :

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9566/2023

¶55

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶56

Exhibit p1COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION
BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
UNDERTHE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT.1972
DATED 18-04-2022.

¶57

Exhibit p2COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN EXT.P1.
Exhibit p3COPY OF PROCEEDINGS IN GC 58/2022
OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF 2ND
RESPONDENT.

¶58

Exhibit p4COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.2.2023 PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Global Building Materials, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Global Building Materials, 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

K.Vaidyanathan Vs Union of India

Manoj C v Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies ( General ) Thrissur

Vidyasagar Panicker, Vs the District Collector

George Philip Vs the Joint Registrar General

Mansoor Vs the Tirur Sahakarana Karshika Grama Vikasana Bank Ltd. .

E.N. Krishnankutty Vs Kerala Cooperative Ombudsman