IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 36584 of 2001(E) ----------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MUTHOOT BANKERS C.S.I. BAKER COMPLEX, POST BOX NO.256, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM II CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM – I. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT (DY. LABOUR COMMISSIONER), KOTTAYAM. 3. A.R. ANILAKUMARI, ANITHALAYAM, MARIAPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHMOOD. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 36584 of 2001 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.59884 OF 2001 IN O.P.NO.36584 OF 2001 DISMISSED. 3.4.2008 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.585/98 DATED 23.12.1998 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPEAL DTD 7.1.1999 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEOFRE R2. EXT.P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN MBA NO.2/99 DTD 22.9.2000 OF R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.36584 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a mighty financial institution, which has branches all over Kerala, is challenging orders of the authorities under the Maternity Benefit Act directing payment of a paltry sum of Rs.3,267/- as maternity benefit and an amount of Rs.250/- as medical bonus to one of its employees. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner’s establishment is employing only 5 employees in its establishment and by virtue of Section 2 (1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, the petitioner’s establishment is not liable to be covered under the Act for want of ten or more employees in their establishment. They would contend that no notice of claim for maternity benefit was preferred under Section 6 and no application under Section 23 of the Act was made by the employee concerned. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner in detail. I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner O.P.No.36584/01 2 on the basis of Section 6 and 23 in so far as this is a suo motu action taken by the Assistant Labour Officer, after making an inspection of the premises of the petitioner. Powers are vested with the ALO to see that the employer acts in accordance with the provisions which powers only has been exercised by him by the impugned order. 3. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the Maternity Benefit Act is not applicable to the petitioner’s establishment, I find that the petitioner had never adduced any evidence before the authorities to that effect. In fact, before the original authority namely, the Assistant Labour Officer, the petitioner had not even responded to the notice issued by the Assistant Labour Officer or appeared before him, as is clear from Ext.P1 order. If the petitioner had a case that the petitioner’s establishment is not liable to be covered under the Maternity Benefit Act for want of sufficient number of employees, it was for the petitioner to plead and prove that fact, since it is a pure question of fact. As is clear from Ext.P1, a notice was issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not respond to the same. It is under the above circumstances that the ALO was forced to pass Ext.P1 order ex parte. As such, O.P.No.36584/01 3 there was no contention raised before the Assistant Labour Officer to the effect that the Act is not applicable to the petitioner’s establishment. No evidence was also available before the Assistant Labour Officer to prove the contention of the petitioner. Of course, in Ext.P2 appeal memorandum, the petitioner had raised a contention to that effect, but there also the petitioner did not take any effort to produce evidence to the effect that the number of employees of the establishment was less than ten. In fact no material has even be placed before this Court also to prove the number of employees in the petitioner's employment. In the above circumstances and especially in view of the meagre sum involved, I am not inclined to entertain this original petition at the instance of a mighty organization like the petitioner in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the original petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.36584/01 4