IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16307 of 2009(G) -------------------------- {CP.20/2006 of LABOUR COURT, KANNUR} .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------- K.G.BHASKARAN NAIR, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, MENONTAVALAPPIL, AGED 74 YEARS, KOTTOOR AMSAM, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., THALIPPARAMBU TALUKE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER), KANNUR. 2. K.RAGHAVAN, S/O.CHAATHUNNY, MADATHIL VALAPPIL, MALAPPATTAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM VIA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16307 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The 2nd respondent, claiming to be an employee of the petitioner, who is conducting a nursery at Sreekandapuram, filed a petition under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 147, before the Labour Court, Kannur, claiming an amount of Rs.2,59,760/- as retrenchment compensation. C.P.No.20/06 is pending in this regard. 2. The petitioner entered appearance before the Labour Court and has filed a counter affidavit. The existence of employer-employee relationship between him and the 2nd respondent has been denied. 3. While so, the 2nd respondent has also approached the 1st respondent the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming an amount of Rs.10,384/- as eligible W.P.(C).No.16307 of 2009 :: 2 :: gratuity. The petitioner has appeared before the Controlling Authority and has filed Ext.P6 objections. He has taken up an objection that there was no employer-employee relationship between him and the 2nd respondent. He then filed Ext.P7 application purportedly under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act to stay the proceedings till the disposal of C.P.No.20/06 by the Labour Court. This has been rejected in Ext.P8 order by the 1st respondent and the same has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 5. The 1st respondent Controlling Authority has rightly rejected Ext.P7 petition. Obviously, Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceedings before the Controlling W.P.(C).No.16307 of 2009 :: 3 :: Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, nor is there any other provision obliging or even entitling the Controlling Authority to stay his hands till the disposal of the claim petition pending before the Labour Court. I find that the stay petition is misconceived and was rightly rejected. The writ petition is, therefore, bereft of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge