IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2423 of 2008(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. PERSONNEL OFFICER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO. 2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI 682 020. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO. 2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI 682 020. BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. JAMEELA BEEVI.M., SHAJEENA HOUSE, PONNOORPARA ARUVIKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA LOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY REGISTRAR LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, MR.S.S.HUSSAIN, MR.P.K.NIJOY. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 2495 OF 2008 AND WPC NO. 4257 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2423/2008 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:. P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF COMMON ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) Nos. 2423, 2495 & 4257 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th July, 2009. J U D G M E N T W.P(C) No. 4257 of 2008 was not in the list today. However, by agreement of parties, that writ petition was also called for and disposed of along with the other two writ petitions, since the issue involved in all these three writ petitions is common. 2. The petitioners are Additional General Manager and Chairman & Managing Director of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. They are challenging the decision of the Kerala Lok Ayukta, whereby the Lok Ayukta has held that the complainants before the Lok Ayukta, who are employees of the Kerala State Civil Supplied Corporation, are entitled to receive balance gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which was deducted from their gratuity as liability due from those employees to the Corporation. The complainants filed the complaint before the Lok Ayukta contending that the petitioners in these writ petitions have unauthorisedly deducted amounts allegedly due from them to the Corporation from the gratuity payable to them. According to them, the amounts can be deducted from the gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act only in the circumstances referred to in Section 4(6) of the Act. They would contend that the situation in their cases is not one covered by Section 4(6) and therefore, the Corporation had no right or power to deduct the amounts from their gratuity amounts. The Lok Ayukta accepted their contention and decided that the complainants are entitled to payment of the withheld amounts from their gratuity as well. The petitioners are challenging that decision primarily on the ground that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. According to them, the Lok Ayukta could have interfered in the matter only if there was maladministration on the part of the Corporation in the matter. W.P.C. No. 2423/08 etc. -: 2 :- Here, according to them, at the most, they have only committed a mistake , which cannot amount to maladministration by any stretch of imagination. They also rely on the decision of this Court in A.T. George & Ors. v. P Saralakumari & Anr, 2007(3) KLJ 706, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that it is only when the complainant has made out a grievance as defined in Section 2(h) and the grievance is as a result of maladministration as defined in Section 2(k), the Lok Ayukta can proceed under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the records leading to Ext. P2 order passed by the 3rd respondent in Ext. P1 complaint and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari. (ii) To declare that the 3rd respondent has no authority to pass the impugned order directing the petitioners to release the entire gratuity amount, including the amount deducted from the gratuity of the 1st respondent towards her liability to Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation.” 3. The complainants before the Lok Ayukta, who are arrayed as respondents in these writ petitions, would contend that insofar as the Corporation had no right or power to deduct amounts from the gratuity due to them except under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, when they deducted the amounts from the gratuity contrary to the legal provisions, that amounts to mal-dministration and therefore the Lok Ayukta is perfectly justified in entertaining the complaint and forwarding a report under Section 12 to the Government. They also rely on the decision of of this Court in State Farms Corporation of India v. Mathai, 2008(2) KLT 112 in support of their contention that an employer cannot deduct amounts allegedly due from him to the employer from the amounts of gratuity due to the employee except under Section 4(6). W.P.C. No. 2423/08 etc. -: 3 :- 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. It is not disputed before me that the situation arising in these cases is not one covered by Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. This Court has in State Farms Corporation's case (supra) held that an employer cannot deduct amounts allegedly due from him to the employer from the amount of gratuity except in accordance with Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity. The Corporation is expected to know the law relating to Payment of Gratuity Act. When the law has been laid down in the Payment of Gratuity Act, which has been interpreted by various decisions of this Court including the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mathew v. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., 2000(3) KLT 107, the Corporation could not have validly deducted amounts from the gratuity due to the complainants before the Lok Ayukta. 6. Maladministration is defined in Section 2(k) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act thus: “(k) “mal-administration” means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,- (i) such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or (ii) there has been wilful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay.” When the Corporation had deducted amounts from the gratuity due to the complainants before the Lok Ayukta against the provisions of the statute and the decisions of this Court, that action would certainly be unreasonable, unjust oppressive or improperly discriminatory. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Lok Ayukta had W.P.C. No. 2423/08 etc. -: 4 :- jurisdiction to decide the complaint filed before it, as a case of maladministration by the petitioners herein. Therefore, I hold that the Lok Ayukta had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint and the Lok Ayukta rightly held that the complainants are entitled to disbursement of the balance gratuity withheld from the gratuity amounts due to them under the Payment of Gratuity Act. However, this shall not stand in the way of the Corporation filing a suit for recovery of the amounts allegedly due from the complainants. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in W.P(C) No. 2423/2008, the amount paid is Rs. 28,360/- and the amount deducted is Rs. 18,006.20. But, in Ext. P2, the Lok Ayukta found that the petitioners are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 28,360/- to the complainant before the Lok Ayukta. This apparently is a mistake. I clarify that the 1st respondent in W.P(C) No. 2423/2008 is entitled to only Rs. 18,006.20 pursuant to Ext. P2 order of the Lok Ayukta and not Rs.28,360/- mentioned in Ext. P2. With the above clarifications and observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/