IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25515 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.L.YACOOB, PANAMKODAN HOUSE, CHATTIKKULAM P.O., CHALAKKUDY. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KANJIKUZHI P.O., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI. JOSEPH KODIYATHRA, SC. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.25515 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was an employee of the first respondent- company, a Government of Kerala undertaking, retired from service on 31.3.2000. Aggrieved by the calculation of the gratuity payable to him, he has submitted Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent. To support his contentions with respect to the error crept in the calculation of gratuity, the petitioner has produced Exts.P3, P5 to P7 before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the receipt of Ext.P4 representation and the documents to support his contentions, no decision was taken thereon by the second respondent. 2. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already approached the second respondent through Ext.P4 representation along with supporting materials, I am of the view that the second respondent is bound to take a decision thereon. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation expeditiously. While considering Ext.P4, the second respondent shall also W.P.(C) NO.25515/2010 2 consider Exts.P3, P5 to P7 documents. The first respondent shall also be afforded with opportunity of being heard while disposing Ext.P4. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.25515/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010