IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5146 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURESH MATHEW, S/O. LATE K.M.MATHEW, NEDUMCHIRAYIL HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT POST, PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKOM POLICE STATION, MUKKOM POST, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5146 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The main relief sought in this writ petition is for an order directing the first respondent, the District Labour Officer, Kozhikode to take appropriate action on Ext.P1 complaint within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with a private limited company to carry out slaughter-tapping of 10,000 rubber trees from a rubber estate situated in Koodaranji near Mukkom in Kozhikode District. The time for performance of the contract was initially fixed as 31.1.2011. Later, by consent of parties, the period for performance was extended till 28.2.2011. Ext.P1 petition was filed before the first respondent alleging that the office bearers of certain trade unions have raised a demand that unless the petitioner agrees to pay gratuity to 24 workers engaged by him on termination of their engagement, they will prevent the petitioner from executing the contract. It is in this background that the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P1 complaint. The relief sought by the petitioner in Ext.P1 is to declare that the payment of gratuity demanded by trade union leaders is illegal. The petitioner has however not been able to point out any provision in the Payment W.P.(C) No.5146 of 2011 2 of Gratuity Act, 1972 which empowers the first respondent, the competent authority under the said Act to pass an order to the effect that workers of any particular establishment are not entitled to gratuity. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has not been able to point out any right in him to seek such a declaration and a duty in the first respondent to entertain the request like the one made in Ext.P1 and pass orders thereon, I am of the opinion that the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is however clarified that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner from defending the applications for gratuity, if any, filed by the workers engaged by him on all available grounds. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.