IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 30967 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOSE.P.P., 60 YEARS S/O.POULOSE, PUNADATH HOUSE KUTTICHIRA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ATHIRAPPILLY ESTATE, KALADY PLANTATIONS PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA. BY ADVS. MR.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1 MR.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.30967 of 2008-J ------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is a former worker of the first respondent. In this writ petition he claims gratuity for the period from 16.6.1961 to 4.4.1977. The first respondent has filed a statement pointing out that the petitioner entered service on 1.11.1964, that thereafter he was dismissed from service and later reinstated on 4.4.1977 as a fresh hand. It is stated that the period from 1.11.1964 till reinstatement cannot be treated as service qualifying for payment of gratuity. It is also stated that based on the petitioner's service from 4.4.1977 gratuity was paid to him when he ceased to be in employment. It is also stated that if at all the petitioner has any grievance his remedy is to approach the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. In my opinion, since the W.P(C) No.30967 of 2008-J 2 claim of the petitioner is that his service prior to re-appointment should also be reckoned for payment of gratuity, he should have moved the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, before seeking the intervention of this Court. The petitioner has not so far moved the said authority. Therefore without prejudice to the petitioner's right to move the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, this writ petition is dismissed. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab