An employer's delay in appealing under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be condoned beyond statutory limits, but the court can grant equitable relief to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Appeal is arising out of the judgment dated

13.10.2020.

2. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C)No.2144 of 2018 has instituted this intra court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Act, to impugn the judgment dated 13.10.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge in that W.P.(C).

3. Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant / writ petitioner. Sri.Sabu John, learned counsel appearing for R1 herein / R1 in the W.P.(C). R2 herein is the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Hence, notice to R2 will stand dispensed with.

4. The writ appellant / writ petitioner herein is Nadakkal Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which is a co-operative society registered and functioning in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder. Its head Office is at Kalluvathukkal, Kollam and has got various branches in and around Kollam. Further that, R1 herein had entered service of the writ appellant / Bank as an Attender on 01.12.1982 and that he was also assigned with duty to attend to clerical work in connection with the gold loan, calculation of interest etc. Further, while he was functioning as Depot Manager, disciplinary action was initiated against him, dismissed from the service on 19.07.2016, the allegations in the said disciplinary proceedings and dismissal is on account of financial misappropriation. The main contention of the writ appellant / writ petitioner employer Society is that the respondent No.1 is not eligible and entitled to get gratuity on account of the above said reasons. Further that, the last pay drawn by the 1st respondent was Rs.63,795/-. Since the claimed amount of gratuity rejected by the writ appellant - employer, the 1st respondent had approached the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 viz., the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam by filing a claim petition as G.C.No.367 of 2016 on the file of the said Authority, claiming that he is entitled for a total gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, which is to be released to him by the writ appellant - employer. It appears that the writ appellant employer was set ex parte in the said gratuity case proceedings and the 2nd respondent Controlling Authority as per Ext.P1 order dated 09.05.2017 had directed that the said application of the retired employee of the respondent stands allowed and thus directed the appellant Co- operative Bank to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to him as gratuity along with simple interest at the rate of 10% from the next day of his dismissal from employment i.e 20.07.2016, within 30 days on receipt of the order etc. Incidentally, in that regard, the appellant would aver that earlier when the case was posted for hearing on 07.01.2017, the appellant / petitioner had failed to appear and hence was set ex parte. That later, on coming to know of Ext.P1 order dated 09.05.2017, the appellant had preferred Ext.P2 petition dated 09.05.2017 before the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority along with an affidavit seeking to set aside Ext.P1 ex parte order and then to decide the claim afresh, after hearing both sides. Further that, all the other admissible terminal benefits due to the 1st respondent was given to him and he accepted the same etc. The writ petitioner / writ appellant was then advised that since by then, a larger Bench of this Court has rendered a judgment on 14.09.2015 and had taken a view that service benefits claimable by employees to satisfy the definition of the 'workman' as per the Industrial Disputes Act etc., will not be entitled to seek alternative remedy by way of adjudication under such labour law enactments and that the exclusive remedy would only be by approaching the State Arbitration Court constituted in terms of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act etc., it may be better to challenge Ext.P1 order before this Court instead of availing the appellate remed