IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1021 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12521/2004 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------- THE STATE FARMS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., ( A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING & ERSTWHILE OWNER OF ARALAM FARM, KANNUR), REGD. OFFICE, FARM BHAVAN, 14-15, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 019, REP. BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC --------------------------------- 1. P.D.MATHAI, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KEESHPALLY P.O., KANNUR-670 673. 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 & THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), COCHIN, KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN, OLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30. 3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 & THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), COCHIN, KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN, OLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30. ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R.2,3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1021 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The essential issue pertains to the question as to whether the appellant/employer is entitled to withhold amounts payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The learned single Judge held that the issue is wholly covered against the appellant by atleast three decisions of this court including the Bench decision in Mathew v. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. (2000 (3) KLT 107). Though learned counsel for the appellant-management made a vehement attempt to persuade this court to take a different view pursuant to the decision taken by the High Court of Delhi in State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. v. Regional Commissioner & Another, (2007 (1) LLJ 763), we find it difficult to be W.A.No.1021 of 2008 -:2:- persuaded. The High Court of Kerala has taken a consistent view. We also find that the issue is otherwise broadly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130). Therefore, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the dismissal of the appeal may not stand in the way of the appellant taking recourse to their remedy before appropriate forum and in which case the time taken by the appellant/petitioner before this court in bona fide prosecuting the writ petition and the writ appeal may be excluded. If any such course of action is open to the appellant/writ petitioner before any forum under law, it is open to the appellant/petitioner to approach that forum and the permission of this court is not necessary and needless to say that the judgments of this court will not stand in the way of the appellant/petitioner taking recourse to such action. We make it clear that in the event of the W.A.No.1021 of 2008 -:3:- appellant/writ petitioner approaching the said forum, the time taken by the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petition and the writ appeal will be taken note of in considering the period of limitation. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge ahg. BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. --------------------------- W.A.No.1021 of 2008 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 7th August, 2009