IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 27554 of 2005(E) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.M.THOMAS, S/O.LATE MANI PULICKAL, AGED 73, RESIDING AT ST. BENEDICTS EXTENSION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 18.( D I E D) *ADDL.P2 IS IMPLEADED: P2. TONY, S/O.FRANCIS PULICKAL, BUSINESS, AGED 43, RESIDING AT PULICKAL HOUSE, ST.BENEDICT ROAD, KOCHI-18. (*ADDL.P2 IS IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DTD. 23/11/09 IN I.A.14743/09) BY MR.P.F.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.SHIJU VARGHESE, MR.DILEEP VARGHESE, MR.PRAMOJ ABRAHAM, MR.RENDEEP PREM. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. M.A.KARIM, PANNAPPILLIPARAMBU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEEVARPURAM, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 12. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT(CENTRAL ACT 1972)OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KAKKANAD. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY TIS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27554/2005 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE GRATUITY APPLICATION NO.G.C.51/2000 DTD. 31/05/2000. P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS IN G.C.NO.51/2000 DTD. 16/12/2000. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.C.NO.51/2000 DTD. 19/04/2003. P4: COPY OF THE GRATUITY APPEAL NO.4/03 DTD. 23/08/2003. P5: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH CORRECTION PETITION DTD. 23/08/2003. P6: COPY OF THE GRATUITY APPLICATION NO.G.C.45/2003 DTD. 26/11/2003. P7: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 19/03/2004. P8: COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN G.C.45/2003 DTD. 3/06/04. P9: COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION IN G.C.45/03 DTD. 26/11/2003. P10: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE DELAY PETITION IN G.C.NO.45/2003 DTD. 24/01/04. P11: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION IN G.C.NO.45/2003 DTD. 26/10/2004. P12: COPY OF THE EXTRACT PROCEEDINGS IN G.C.NO.45/2003 DTD.1/06/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 27554 of 2005 ................................................. Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The 1st respondent in this writ petition filed a gratuity application before the 2nd respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner herein was shown as the employer. The 1st respondent had earlier filed an application under the State Act which was dismissed as not maintainable but without prejudice to the right of the 1st respondent to file an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act after recording evidence of parties on merit also. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P6 application for gratuity before the 2nd respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The 1st respondent also sought condonation of delay in filing the same. A further application was also filed to take judicial notice of the records in the earlier Gratuity case under the State Act. In that Gratuity application, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P12 order which reads as follows: “Review petition is allowed. Heard the counsel for the both sides on delay condonation petition and petition to take judicial notice of records in G.C. 51/2000. Both petitions are allowed. Adjourned to 18.6.2005 for written statement on main application and for evidence of the applicant.” W.P(C) No. 27554 of 2005 -2- That order is under challenge in this writ petition. The G.C. 51/2000 mentioned therein is the application filed under the State Act. In that case, evidence was recorded. The 1st respondent wanted to incorporate that evidence in the Gratuity application under the Payment of Gratuity Act which was allowed. The delay in filing the Gratuity Application was also condoned. I am of opinion that Ext.P12 is purely in the nature of an interim order and the petitioner can very well challenge that order also while challenging the final order to be passed in the Gratuity application, if he is aggrieved by the same. In fact this court and the Supreme Court has always frowned upon authorities under labour legislations passing piece-meal orders and challenge against interim orders in such matters. Therefore I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P12 at this stage. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the said order while challenging the final order to be in passed, if not already passed, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is dismissed. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge