IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TH WEDNESDAY, THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 816 OF 2020 PETITIONER:

MALABAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.

RAJIV GANDHI ROAD,KURUVAMBRAM,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM -676123, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.A.MOIDEEN KUTTY.

BY ADVS.

SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)

SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS:

1 THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, KOZHIKODE, WAYANAD ROAD,CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673020.

2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,PALAKKAD,THOZHIL BHAVAN,CIVIL STATION ROAD, PALAKKAD HO,PALAKKAD-678001.

3 MRS.RAJEENA ABRAHAM, D/O.ABRAHAM,THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMBUKADAVU,KONDACHERY, KOZHIKODE-673580.

BY ADV SMT.K.N.RAJANI FOR R3 ADV. NEEMA T V, SR. GP.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Malabar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Controlling Authority in an application filed under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) b y the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has also challenged Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent in an appeal preferred under Section 7(7) of the Act.

2. The short facts necessary for adjudicating the issues are a s follows:

The 3rd respondent, in her application, contended that she joined the petitioner hospital as a Lab Technician on 02.07.2007 and continued in service until 22.02.2015. According to her, she resigned from service on 22.02.2015. Although she was entitled to gratuity and other benefits, the same were not disbursed or paid to her. She stated that she filed an application for payment of gratuity on 28.09.2017; however, no payment was made. Consequently, she approached t he Controlling Authority by filing Ext.P3 application dated 24.10.2017.

3. The petitioner entered appearance and contended that the 3rd respondent was merely a trainee who had undergone training from 02.07.2007 to 01.05.2012. It was only on 01.05.2012 that she was formally brought into the rolls o f the hospital. She left service on 22.02.2015, and therefore, her total period of employment as a regular employee was only 2 years and 9 months. As her service fell short of the qualifying p eriod prescribed for entitlement to gratuity, her demand for payments of amounts under the Act cannot be sustained. It was also contended by the management that the hospital is not an establishment covered under the Act and that a trainee cannot be treated as an employee entitled to gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

4. Before the Controlling Authority, evidence was recorded, and the 3rd respondent was examined as the claimant. On her side, an experience certificate dated 22.04.2015 issued by the petitioner was marked as Ext. R3(b). On behalf of the respondents, three witnesses were examined and Exts. R1 to R6 were produced and marked.

5. The Controlling Authority after evaluating the evidence on record held that the contention that the 3rd respondent, being a trainee, was ineligible for gratuity could not be sustained. Referring to Section 2 (e) of the Act, which defines the term “employee”, the Authority observed that the definition does not exclude a trainee but only an apprentice. As regards the period of service, both the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority relied on Ext. R3(b), which clearly showed that the 3rd respondent had worked as a Lab Technician from 02.07.2007 to 22.02.2015, i.e., for 7 years and 7 months, which stands unchallenged. On that basis, the Controlling Authority’s decision was upheld in appeal. 6. Sri. Jai Mohan, l