IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 32420 of 2011 (B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- L. JASMIN BHAI, W/O.BOVAN, AGED 59 YEARS, KOTTURTHEKKEVILAPUTHANVEEDU,THOZHUKKAL, PERUMBAZHUTHUR P.O.,NEYYTTINKARA. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA KHADI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. E.M. ABDUL KHADIR, R2 BY SRI.K.P.HARISH,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.32420/2011-B: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14/1/2000. EXT.P3;- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC-28139/10 DTD 16/11/10. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/12/10. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/1/2011. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 20/3/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 32420 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had retired from service as an Upper Division Typist under the 2nd respondent. She had earlier filed WP(C) No:28130/2010 alleging that she had not been paid her gratuity, though 3 years had expired since her retirement. As per Ext.P3 judgment, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court for the reason that the petitioner had already received the amount due to her in the meantime. It has been observed by this Court, in Ext.P3 that the question of payment of interest wa s to be agitated by the petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioner complains that though she had accordingly submitted application before the 2nd respondent for payment of interest, the same has been rejected as per Ext.P5. 2. It has been found in Ext.P5 that the petitioner is WP(C) NO. 32420 OF 2011 ..2.. not entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment of gratuity for the reason that, it was due to the petitioner's own fault that the delay was caused. The petitioner had not applied for payment of gratuity in the proper form as stipulated by Rule 7 of rules framed under the Kerala Payment of Gratuity Rules. The counsel for the petitioner contends that it was the duty of the petitioner's employer to have properly advised her regarding the correct manner of applying for payment of gratuity. Having not done that, the petitioner contends that she cannot be denied the amount of interest to her for the reason of her ignorance. 3. The Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent, on the other hand, places reliance on the judgment of this Court, Ext.P3, and points out that it was the Standing Counsel who had pointed out to the Court that no proper application had been submitted by the petitioner for payment of gratuity. The petitioner had also been informed of the defect by letter dated 04.10.2010. Therefore, it is submitted that the 2nd WP(C) NO. 32420 OF 2011 ..3.. respondent was not guilty of any laxity in informing the petitioner of her rights. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 5. It is true that, in Ext.P3 judgment, this Court has recorded the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner had not submitted any application for payment of gratuity, and that for effecting payment of the said amount it was necessary for her to submit an application in the proper form. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent is guilty of an omission to inform the petitioner of her right to claim gratuity and the manner in which an application for the purpose had to be submitted. The explanation of the petitioner for not submitting the application within time as evident from Ext.P5, was that she was not aware of the formalities. Since the petitioner had been informed by the letter dated 04.10.2010 as admitted in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it cannot be said that the WP(C) NO. 32420 OF 2011 ..4.. 2nd respondent is guilty of any negligence in the manner of informing the petitioner. 6. I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P5. Further, the Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent points out that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of approaching the Controling Authority against Ext.P5 under Rule 10 of the Kerala Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973. The petitioner also has a right of appeal u/s.20 of the Kerala Payment of Gratuity Act. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE bka/-