IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 2995 of 2007(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21313/2007 Dated 11/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANJARAKKANDY FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1141, MAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:- --------------- 1. A.V.THAMBAN NAMBIAR, S/O.APPAKUTTY NAMBIAR, CHIRUKANDATH HOUSE, P.O.MAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER) KANNUR. 3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR R1 SRI.P.M.SATHEESH FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU FOR R.2 & 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.A. No. 2995 of 2007 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether any interference is warranted with the concurrent orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). These two authorities held that respondent No.1 herein was entitled to get a sum of Rs.78,750/- towards gratuity from the appellant-Co-operative Bank for the services rendered by him as an employee (head load worker) from August, 1965 till May, 2000. The appellant was directed to pay the above sum with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from May 29, 2000. 2. The above concurrent order passed by the two authorities referred to above was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge who by the impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petition confirming the orders passed by the two authorities under the Act. WA 2995/2007 2 3. Sri Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the order passed by the authorities under the Act is totally illegal and unsustainable either in law or on facts. He submits that respondent No.1 will, by no stretch of imagination, fall within the ambit of the definition clause contained under section 2(e) of the Act. He further submits that respondent No.1 had not adduced any evidence to show that he had rendered continuous service of five years in the establishment. There was also no modicum of evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in a year, as provided under section 2A of the Act. In short, the contention of the appellant is that the provisions contained in section 4 of the Act have been totally overlooked by the two authorities while passing the orders. 4. Per contra, it is contended by P.M.Satheesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1, that the two authorities had categorically found that the employee had got himself registered as a head load worker under the appellant, as provided under the Head load Workers Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The registration granted in favour of respondent No.1 as an WA 2995/2007 3 employee under the appellant had never been challenged and thus it had become final and conclusive. Still further, the appellant did not have a case that respondent No.1 had never worked in its establishment at any point of time. The only contention raised by the appellant was that respondent No.1 had been engaged off and on when ever his services were required. But the appellant did not choose to produce relevant records which, if made available before the authorities concerned, would have clinchingly shown that the appellant had been willfully suppressing material facts with an ulterior motive. 5. We do not propose to delve deep into the factual scenario in this case for the following two reasons:- a) We have been informed that respondent No.1 is bed ridden not only due to old age but because of various ailments. b) The fact finding authorities have entered certain findings on the basis of materials available on record. However, there is no doubt that this Court can look into the question whether the statutorily authorities had complied with WA 2995/2007 4 the statutory provisions correctly, while deciding the legal issues. Similarly the questions whether respondent No.1 would fall within the ambit of the definition clause in S.2(e) of the Act or whether the statutory mandates contained under 2(a) and section 4 had been complied with or not also have to be necessarily considered. 6. As has been mentioned earlier, we do not deem it necessary at this stage to deal with those issues, since in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case interest of justice demands that the issue be given a quietus once and for all. 7. The fact remains that respondent No.1 had admittedly worked in the appellant-establishment as a head load worker. It is true that some of the materials produced by the appellant will show that respondent No.1 had taken up some contract in the appellant-establishment. Still further, it is pointed out before us that respondent No.1 was a member of the Co-operative society. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that respondent No.1 being a member he could not have been an employee of the society. Yet again we refrain from making any observation on WA 2995/2007 5 this aspect for the reasons indicated above. 8. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant can be directed to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- in a lump, to respondent No.1 towards the full and final settlement. 9. The appellant shall pay the said amount to respondent No.1 by way of a Demand Draft within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The appeal is disposed of as above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.