T.K.RUGMANI AMMA v. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Feb 2007
- Bench
- THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.```````````````````````````W.P.(C) NO. 3413 OF 2007```````````````````````````Dated this the 9th day of February, 2007J U D G M E N TThe impugned Ext.P4 is an order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. That order was issued on 20/12/2005. Thiswrit petition is filed on 19/10/2006. The petitioner did not take recourse to the statutory appellate remedy available under that Act within the time prescribed. With the passage of time, ExhibitP1 order has become final and I do not find any ground to interfere with that order, in exercise of the authority under Article226. At this distant point of time, more so because I do not find any jurisdictional error in the said order. In the aforesaid circumstances, the challenge to Ext.P4 fails. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the request of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing that any distress action on the basis of Exhibit P4 will stand suspended if the petitioner remits the entire amounts including the accruals due as per Exhibit P4 in five equal monthly instalments, payable on or before last working day of every month commencing from February 2007. If there is WPC 3413/2007: 2 :default in remitting such amounts, the benefit of this judgment, inso far is in favour of the petitioner, will stand recalled automatically. Writ petition is disposed of as above.THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGERp
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Payment ofGratuity Act, 1972.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 09 Feb 2007. The bench was THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.