IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7357 of 2010(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THE MANAGER, SIDCO PRESSURE DIE-CASTING UNIT, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- R.V.VIJU, KARIKKARA THALAKKAL VEEDU, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7357 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of a Unit run by the Kerala SIDCO Limited which is fully owned by the Government of Kerala. The respondent was a workman under the petitioner. He claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority allowed his claim as per Ext.P1. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 before the Appellate Authority. As per Ext.P2, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent does not have a pleading that he has the minimum continuous service of 5 years, which is a necessary pre-condition to make him eligible for payment of gratuity under the Act. Since the respondent himself does not have a case that he has got the minimum service which alone would entitle him to gratuity, it is contended that the authorities have acted in excess of their jurisdiction. wpc No.7357/2010 2 3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the application for gratuity submitted by the respondent does not contain even an averment that the respondent had the minimum required continuous service and that the relevant column in his application has been left blank. However, it is admitted that neither the petitioner nor the counsel have seen the application submitted by the respondent. Therefore, the assertion made before me is without any basis. There are absolutely no grounds to presume that the application submitted by the petitioner was without the necessary details. 4. I notice that the Controlling Authority has considered the claim of the respondent. The petitioner had appeared before the Controlling Authority and had contested the claim. According to the petitioner, the applicant was a piece rated worker and not a regular employee. It was also contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the opposite party. The respondent however produced the records to show that he was enrolled under the Employee's State Insurance Scheme as well as the wpc No.7357/2010 3 Provident Fund Scheme. He has also produced Ext.A5 Experience Certificate issued by the petitioner. The Controlling Authority referred to Ext.B3 memo of appointment issued by the petitioner as well as the other relevant records, to come to the conclusion that the respondent was an employee of the petitioner entitled to payment of gratuity. Though the petitioner had contended that the respondent was working only as a piece rated employee, no documents or evidence to substantiate the contention or to show what wages he had drawn during the period of his employment with the petitioner was produced. No document was also produced to show that the service of the respondent was not continuous. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to prove the contra, it has been found that the respondent was eligible to be paid gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said order of the Controlling Authority is Ext.P1. 5. Though the petitioner had challenged Ext.P1 in appeal, as per Ext.P2, the appeal has also been dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any reason to warrant a conclusion that Exts.P1 and wpc No.7357/2010 4 P2 are erroneous. Nor have the said orders been shown to suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/