IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 567 of 2009 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.38614/2001 Dated 25/05/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ JOLLY CHERIAN, JOJO SADANAM OMALLUR, PUTHEN PEEDIKA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.VINOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, STATE ADVISORY CONTRACT, LABOUR BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRESIDENT, PATHANAMTHITTA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.Q.363, PATHANAMTHITTA. R2 BY ADV.SRI.V.G.ARUN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.567 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. This writ appeal is at the instance of the petitioner in O.P.No.38614 of 2001. After dismissal from service of respondent No.2 Bank she had been fighting for her cause for a large number of years. Though she was ordered to be reinstated in service, her woes continued. Ultimately she thought that she would get at least her service benefits at the intervention of respondent No.1, the appellate authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1960. 2. However, respondent No.1 passed Ext.P7 order in which he quantified the amount payable to the appellant at Rs.7,93,658/- as against the claim made by her to the tune of Rs.13,96,077/- as could be seen from Ext.P6 statement. The above order was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single W.A.No.567 of 2009 - 2 - Judge in the writ petition. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered her claim. 3. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and having perused the materials available on record, we find that there is considerable force in the contention raised by the appellant. 4. Respondent No.1 has apparently taken up the exercise of calculation without proper application of mind. Ext.P6 statement submitted by the appellant would show that she had clearly indicated under what all heads amounts were due to her, but respondent No.1 had proceeded to quantify the amount at Rs.7,93,658/- without any proper adjudication or application of mind. For example, respondent No.1 does not seem to have taken into account the periodical pay revisions. Apart from that, the amount of gratuity fixed by respondent No.1 vis-a-vis the claim made by the appellant is wholly without any basis. 5. We do not propose to refer to each and every item of the calculation made in the impugned order. In our considered W.A.No.567 of 2009 - 3 - view, Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside for the sole reason of non- application of mind. We do so. 6. Respondent No.1 shall reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order keeping in view Ext.P6 statement given by the appellant and the entire relevant records. Fresh order shall be passed by respondent No.1 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It shall be ensured by respondent No.1 that the appellant and respondent No.2 are afforded sufficient opportunity to produce all the relevant records and also to be heard before any orders are passed. Writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns