Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.Babu
S. Kuttappan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Labour Commissioner Controlling Authority, State Advisory Contract Labour Board – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is secretary of trust, challenging awards. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel argues for legality of awards. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court emphasizes alternative remedies. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. discretionary jurisdiction should respect statutory remedies. (Para 11) |
| 5. writ petitions dismissed; appeal options remain. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is the Secretary of the Vanika Vaisya Educational and Employment Trust. The Trust runs educational institutions. The party respondents (respondent Nos.2 in each case) in these Writ Petitions were former employees of the Educational Institutions run by the Trust. After superannuation, the party respondents filed applications seeking gratuity under Section 7 (4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 , ('the Act' for short) before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority passed Awards (Ext.P1 in each case) in the applications filed by the party respondents. The petitioner failed to pay the amount awarded by the Controlling Authority to the party respondents. He also did not challenge the Awards before the Appellate Authority. These Awards are under challenge in these Writ Petitions.
3. The learned counsel for t
Writ petitions challenging awards under the Payment of Gratuity Act are not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies are available.
The entire service period of a Daily Wager qualifies as 'continuous service' for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but writ petitions should not be entertained when an alternative sta....
Relief need not be denied on technical grounds, and the court may grant an opportunity to produce necessary evidence before the appellate authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief through a writ petition.
Point of Law : There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order passed by Appellate Authority and it has rightly affirmed the order passed by Authority. Counsel for petitioner has not....
The main legal point established is that the court cannot interfere with the decision of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
