BY AD v. BINOY VASUDEVAN

In the claim petition so filed, it was contended by the 2nd respondent that he had joined the services of the petitioner herein on 1/1/1960 and superannuated on 31/12/2015 while working as an operator in the Casino Theatre run by the petitioner herein. According to him, the last drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-.

3. Initially, a certain Haris was arrayed as the respondent. On the receipt of the summons, he submitted an objection that he was not the proprietor of the Theatre. On 21/6/2023, Haris was removed from the array of the respondent, and later, the petitioner herein was impleaded in his capacity as the proprietor of the Theatre and summons was served on him.

4. The order passed by the Controlling Authority discloses that the petitioner did not appear and contest the matter. He was set ex-parte. The application was allowed, and a sum of Rs 2,42,308/- was awarded to the 2nd respondent. WP(C) NO. 2759 OF 2024 3

6. The aforesaid order is under challenge. Sri Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that on receipt of the summons, the petitioner sent his objection to the authority by registered post. He refers to Exhibit P11, a photocopy of the postal acknowledgment, to substantiate his contention. According to the learned counsel, while allowing the application, the contention raised by the petitioner to the objection was not considered. According to learned counsel, there is no justification in setting the petitioner ex-parte, despite having submitted a detailed objection controverting the assertions in the claim petition. It is submitted that the application was filed with considerable delay and the same ought not have been entertained by the Controlling Authority.

7. In response, the learned Government Pleader would point out that no reliance can be placed on the photocopy of the acknowledgment placed before this Court by the petitioner. If petitioner has a case that he was set ex-parte without a sufficient cause, nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the Controlling Authority with his grievance. He would point out that the petitioner has no case that the summons were not served on him. It is only when the notice, threatening the initiation of the coercive proceeding, was issued that the petitioner has rushed to this Court.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced and have WP(C) NO. 2759 OF 2024 4 gone through the records.

9. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the objection raised by the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner has no case that on receipt of the summons, he had appeared before the Controlling Authority and contested the proceedings. His contention is that his objection was sent by registered post, and it was without considering the same that the award was passed. From the order passed by the Controlling Authority, it is evident that despite the receipt of the summons, the petitioner failed to appear before the said Authority. There is no reason to disbelieve the Controlling Authority. If the petitioner has a grievance with the order passed by the Controlling Authority setting him ex-parte, nothing prevents petitioner from approaching the Controlling authority substantiating his contention.

10. Even otherwise, the award passed by the Controlling Authority was on 21.12.2023. Under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority within 60 days, which period could have been extended for another 60 days. If the petitioner has any grievance, nothing prevents him from preferring an appeal within the statutory period. When the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy, he will have to exhaust the same by complying with the provisions. WP(C) NO. 2759 OF 2024 5 I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, perversity, or patent injustice warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition will stand dismissed. Sru Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE WP(C) NO. 2759 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2759/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GRATUITY SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23-01-2023 BEFORE HARIS. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28-01-2023 SUBMITTED BY HARIS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07-02-2023 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SEEKING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 2564 DAYS IN PREFERRING THE APPLICATION DATED 7-2-2023. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22-2-2023 TO ONE HARIS. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09-03-2023 SUBMITTED BY HARIS. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07-02-2023 AFTER CORRECTING THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT/EMPLOYER. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-3-2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER ERNAKULAM. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21-6-2023 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR ON 01-08-2023. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20-07-2023. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. Exhibit P12 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-12-2023 IN GC NO.45/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21-12-2023 IN FORM NO.R UNDER RULE 17.