Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
S. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, N. SAHADEVAN, R. NARAYANA PILLAI, K. HAREENDRAN NAIR, K. VIJAYAN NAIR, K.S., SIVAPRASAD, RAJANBABU C., V. KRISHNAKUMAR, T. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, C.D. SUNNY, T. STEEPHAN, P.G. SANKARA PANICKER, V. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, M.G. RAMACHANDRAN, B. NARAYANAN NAIR, SIVAKUMAR R., S. SREEKUMARAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
THE GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, ASST. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD., THE CHAIRMAN AND TRUSTEEE, THE CHAIRMAN AND TRUSTEE, PRASHANT SOMANI, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, STATE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPUTY TAHASILDAR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16812 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR, SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR, SHRI.ADITYA VENUGOPALAN, SMT.NIKITHA SUSAN PAULSON, SHRI.MAHESH CHANDRAN, SHRI.GAUTHAM KRISHNA E.J., SHRI.AVINASH KURUNGOT, SMT.SHALLET K. SAM
For the Respondents: SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SHRI.AKASH S., SMT.DEVIKA JAYARAJ, SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, SRI.RAJA KANNAN

The court mandates the timely consideration of employees' benefit claims by the relevant authorities.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petitioners, former employees, are seeking directions regarding unpaid provident fund and pensions. They filed representations before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

Findings of Court:
The court acknowledges the limited prayer to direct the 4th respondent to address these representations.

Issues: The court frames the issue of ensuring timely consideration of the petitioners' grievances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's ruling focuses on expediting the decision on the representations made by the petitioners.

Result: The writ petition stands disposed of, directing respondent No.4 to take into account Ext.P7 series and such other representations stated to have been filed by the respective petitioners.

Table of Content
1. seeks relief for unpaid employment benefits. (Para 1)
2. petitioners request for timely action on their representations. (Para 2)
3. court directs the authority to address petitions. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are stated to be former employees who were working with the 6^th respondent and had superannuated from the afore Company. The petitioners contend that the provident fund, gratuity and other consequential pensionary benefits payable to them have not been disbursed, and it is seeking the afore relief that the petitioners have approached this Court.

2. Sri. Mahesh Chandran, representing Sri. Aswin Gopakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, would point out that the petitioners limit their prayer for a direction to the 4^th respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, before whom Ext.P7 series of representations have been filed by some of the petitioners, to consider and dispose of the same within a time frame. The counsel also adds that all the petitioners have filed similar representations and that such representations may also be directed to be considered and disposed of.

3. I have also heard Sri. Jai Mohan, the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent, as well as Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, the standing counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and

Taking note of the limited prayer made as above, this writ petition stands disposed of, directing respondent No.4 to take into account Ext.P7 series and such other representations stated to have been filed by the respective petitioners, and to dispose of the same with notice and opportunity to the petitioners as well as the 6^th respondent Company, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

sab HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 16812 OF 2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN OP NO.

22926 OF 2000 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 10.08.2000 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/04/2003 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BIFR IN BIFR CASE NO. 93/1987 DATED 12.02.2014 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST LETTER DATED

Click Here to Read the rest of this document