Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P.
Kosamattam Finance Ltd., Represented By Managing Director Mathew K. Cherian – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kottayam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging jurisdiction under the payment of gratuity act. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's argument for federal jurisdiction under the 1972 act. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent's argument on jurisdiction issue. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's analysis on correct jurisdiction. (Para 4) |
| 5. jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent. (Para 5) |
| 6. alternative remedies do not bar jurisdiction in cases of lack of jurisdiction. (Para 6) |
| 7. writ petition allowed; orders quashed. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
GOPINATH P., J.
The petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts.P7 and P8 proceedings of the Controlling Authority (the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 Act), determining the claim of the 2nd respondent for gratuity on account of service rendered with the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is admittedly an establishment having branches in more than one State, the claim of the 2nd respondent should have been considered by the Controlling Authority appointed by the Central Government and not by the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government. The learn
The authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be determined by statutory provisions, not consent, particularly when dealing with establishments operating in multiple States.
The appropriate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for establishments with branches in multiple states is the Central Government, rendering state authority's jurisdiction invalid.
The Payment of Gratuity Act allows claims for both statutory and contractual gratuity to be adjudicated under the same authority, ensuring employee rights are protected.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the Appellate Authority to adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Union of India and the stay of the recovery notice, subj....
The Payment of Gratuity Act mandates that claims for gratuity be addressed first to the Controlling Authority, as it constitutes a complete code for such disputes.
Point of Law : Section 2(e) of the Act reads as “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are expressed or implied, in any....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for Authorities to consider all contentions raised by the parties and the willingness of the contractors to deposit a sum to cover ....
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
