Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, Basant Balaji, JJ
Johnson Abraham Mathew – Appellant
Versus
Regional Joint Labour Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. post-superannuation continued employment as headmistress/coordinator evidenced by salary payments. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. appellant claims consultancy; respondent asserts substantive posts. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. nomenclature irrelevant; salary and authority confirm gratuity eligibility; no perversity. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
We are considering these appeals together, since the factual circumstances presented are analogous and the parties are common.
2. The third respondent in these writ appeals - Smt.Mariamma Baby (“Teacher”), asserts to have been working as the headmistress of the Good Shepherd Public School - of which the appellant is the manager; and she claimed her eligible gratuity, on retiring after attaining the age of superannuation.
3. The statutory Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act”), issued Ext.P4 order granting “Teacher” an amount of Rs.4,32,692/- along with 10% interest. This order was challenged by the appellant before this Court through WP(C) No.10453/2021. The said writ petition was disposed of through Ext.P5 judgment, directing the Controlling Authority to reconsider the matter; and this led t
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
