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 vs 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

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

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

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 responde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document