IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31613 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M. GANGADHARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 65 YEARS, THARAYIL HOUSE, EDAYAPURAM, ASHOKAPURAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.C.POULOSE, SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA-683 101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 030, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 101. 4. K.M. JOSEPH, S/O.LATE MATHEW, AGED 74 YEARS, KOLERICKAL HOUSE, KONGORPPILLY, ALANGADU PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 525. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN. R4 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 31613 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2008 IN G.C NO.36/2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT U/S.34 OF RR ACT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT U/S.7. OF RR ACT. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION-CUM-REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF M.G INDUSTRIES. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.10.2011 IN W.P(C)NO.9936/2010 OF THIS HONB'LE COURT. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 29.10.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23.11.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 23.11.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.SIRI JAGAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)NO.31613 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December 2011 --------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 order under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, the second respondent directed the petitioner to pay gratuity of Rs.57,750/- with interest to the 4th respondent finding that the petitioner was the employer of the 4th respondent. That was an ex parte order. The petitioner did not appear before the second respondent in the proceedings which culminated in Ext.P1 order . Revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated. The petitioner earlier approached this court against the revenue recovery proceedings by filing W.P(C). No.9936 of 2010, which was withdrawn by him without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 order appropriately. Now, the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 application before the 2nd respondent to set aside Ext.P1 ex parte order passed with Ext.P9 petition to condone delay in filing the same. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: i. call for records leading to issuance of Exhibits P1 to P3 from the concerned respondents and quash Exhibits P2 and P3, by issuing a writ of certiorari; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” This is opposed by the counsel for the 4th respondent. He submits that he produced very valid and cogent evidence before the second W.P.(C)NO.31613 OF 2011 2 respondent to prove that the petitioner was the de facto employer of the 4th respondent and after considering the same only, the second respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner was the employer liable to pay gratuity to the 4th respondent. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in Ext.P1 order or the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of that amount is the contentions raised. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. Whatever be the merits of the contentions of the parties the second respondent is bound to pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9 applications either way. As a condition for directing the 2nd respondent to consider the same, I have directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amounts covered by Ext. P1 with interest before the second respondent. The petitioner submits that the said amount has been deposited. If that be so, the second respondent shall consider Exts.P8 and P9 applications in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed, the amount deposited by the petitioner shall not be disbursed to the 4th respondent. I hasten to add that I have not considered the merits of the contentions of the petitioner and the second respondent shall consider the relative merits of the contentions of the parties in accordance with his best judgment based on the materials placed by the parties before him and nothing stated in this writ petition shall influence his decision on Exts.P8 and P9. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE STU W.P.(C)NO.31613 OF 2011 3 W.P.(C)NO.31613 OF 2011 4