M.A. Latheef v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Controlling Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kannur & Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode; Pallikkere Islamic Education Society

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 9[TH]DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA,1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` M.A. LATHEEF AGED 50 YEARS S/O. M. ABDULLA, SECRETARY, PALLIKERE ISLAMIC EDUCATION SOCIETY, P.O PAKKAM, BEKAL FORT, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.BONNY BENNY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1M. SHOBHANA MIDHUNALAYAM HOUSE, ADUKKATHI, CHERANKADAVU, P.O PAKKAM, VIA PALLIKERE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 673 531 2APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 (REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KOZHIKODE 673 001. 3CONTROLLING AUTHORITY (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KANNUR 670 001. BY ADVS. SRI.G.S.KRISHNAN KARTHA SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN SRI TR RENJITH SR GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON09.02.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).126/2020,97/2020ANDCONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 2 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944`** ``` WP(C) NO. 126 OF 2020 ``` ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` M.A LATHEEF AGED 50 YEARS S/O.M.ABDULLA, SECRETARY, PALLIKERE ISLAMIC EDUCATION SOCIETY, P.O.PAKKAM, BEKAL FORT, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADVS. M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) K.A.SANJEETHA BONNY BENNY ``` ``` RESPONDENT/S: ``` ``` 1K. NARAYANI MENICHAMKODE VEEDU,.P.O, ANANDHASHRAM, VIA KANHANGAD, P.O.PALLIKERE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671316 2APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972(REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER), KOZHIKODE-673002 3CONTROLLING AUTHORITY (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), KANNUR-670001 BY ADVS. SRI.G.S.KRISHNAN KARTHA SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON09.02.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).73/2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 3 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944`** ``` WP(C) NO. 97 OF 2020 ``` ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` M.A. LATHEEF AGED 50 YEARS S/O. M.ABDULLA, SECRETARY, PALLIKERE ISLAMIC EDUCATION SOCIETY, P.O.PAKKAM, BEKAL FORT, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADVS. M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) K.A.SANJEETHA BONNY BENNY ``` ``` RESPONDENT/S: ``` ``` 1P. HELMEENA HANEEFA QUARTERS, NEAR WATER TANK, PALLIKERE, P.O.PALLIKERE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 531 2APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 (REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KOZHIKODE-673 001 3CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KANNUR-6780 001 BY ADVS. SRI.G.S.KRISHNAN KARTHA SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON09.02.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).73/2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 9[TH]DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA,1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 100 OF 2020 ``` ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` M.A. LATHEEF AGED 50 YEARS S/O. M.ABDULLA,SECRETARY, PALLIKERE ISLAMIC EDUCATION SOCIETY, P.O.PAKKAM, BEKAL FORT, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADVS. M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.BONNY BENNY ``` ``` RESPONDENT/S: ``` ``` 1NIRMALAKUMARI V.R. PALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KONNAKKAD, VIA PARAPPA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 533 2APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 (REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KOZHIKODE-673 001 3CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, ( DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KANNUR-670 001 BY ADVS. SRI.G.S.KRISHNAN KARTHA SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON09.02.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).73/2020ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 5 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner in all these cases is the Secretary of the Pallikkere Islamic Educational Society. The 1st respondent in all these cases claiming that they worked as teachers in the said school and had worked for the statutory period have filed separate applications before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming gratuity. Though sufficient opportunities were granted by the controlling authority to the petitioner, they failed to appear before the authority. The teachers gave evidence that they had worked as teachers for periods exceeding the statutory period and also placed materials to substantiate the last drawn wages drawn by them. The controlling authority, after finding that the teachers are employees and that the petitioner is the employer, took the view that the 1st respondent in each of these cases was entitled to various amounts as ordered. 2. Challenging the order, the petitioner preferred separate appeals before the Appellate Authority. It appears that the appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the appeals were preferred beyond the statutory period as prescribed under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 3. The said order was challenged before this Court, and by a common judgment dated 22.03.2019 in W.P.(C.) No. 2198/2019 & Connected ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 6 ``` cases, this Court had set aside the order on terms, and directions were issued to dispose of the appeal within a time frame. 4. In terms of the directions so issued, the appeals were taken up by the 2nd respondent, and the same was dismissed by separate orders produced as Ext. P4 in these writ petitions. The Appellate Authority took note of the fact that the appellant had failed to substantiate that the teachers were not qualified and that they had not worked for the requisite period. The appellate authority also noted that the petitioner had failed to place any material to substantiate this contention, either before the Controlling Authority or before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had also failed to substantiate that the teachers were dismissed from service for their inefficiency in performing their duties. The Appellate Authority finally concluded that the oral evidence let in by the teachers relating to the period of service, their salary, and their entitlement was properly considered by the Controlling Authority while ordering the payment of gratuity. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is without any application of mind. According to the learned counsel, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to substantiate his case. It is further submitted that a teacher cannot be said to be an employee within the meaning ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 7 ``` of the Act. Though the petitioner had raised a jurisdictional issue that the 1st respondent did not have the requisite qualification to come under the provisions of the Act, the said contention was not taken into account. According to the learned counsel, even if it is assumed that the provisions of the Act would apply to the 1st respondent in these cases, they are expected to adduce proof that they had worked for the period stipulated under the Act. Instead of remanding the case back to the Controlling Authority, the Appellate Authority has merely confirmed the same. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondent has opposed the submission. It is submitted that the petitioner could have very well made available materials before the Appellate Authority to substantiate that the 1st respondent in these cases did not have the requisite period of service or they suffered from lack of qualification. According to the learned counsel, the teaching staff of a school would fall within the purview of the term ‘Employee’ under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and the petitioner would fall within the purview of the term ‘Employer’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel would rely on the judgment in **Shalosh Ralph Best v. Appellate Authority** [2018 (156) FLR 227 (Gujarat)]. It is submitted that the petitioner could have very well produced the attendance register before the Appellate ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 8 ``` Authority or this Court to substantiate either that there was a break in service or that they suffered from the lack of requisite service. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced. I find from the materials placed on record that the employees in all these cases had filed applications under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, contending that they have been functioning as teachers in the Schools run by the petitioners and they were terminated from service on various dates. The petitioner failed to appear before the Controlling Authority. The said authority determined the last drawn salary and also the period during which they had worked. The Payment of Gratuity Act is a piece of social welfare legislation, and its provisions are to be considered liberally. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, in addition to contending that the petitioner was not heard, it was also urged that the school is a private institution and that though the employees were all working in the school, they were not qualified and their performance was not upto the mark. The petitioners had also asserted that the teachers had not worked for a continuous period of 240 days in a year. The appellate authority took note of the fact that no materials were made available to substantiate the said contention. It was rightly noted that the petitioner had failed to produce documents including the attendance register, their eligibility for gratuity or the reasons which persuaded the employer to terminate them from service. Even ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 9 ``` before this Court, except for asserting that the teachers had not worked for the requisite period and that they are not qualified. No materials are produced to support the said assertion. Having considered the entire records, I find no reason to take a different view from that of the controlling authority as upheld by the appellate authority. I find no error or perversity in the orders impugned. It appears that the only intention of the petitioner is to protract the matter and to deny the teachers the benefit to which they are statutorily entitled. I find no reason to interfere with the orders impugned. These writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 126/2020`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.C.NO.32/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 06.06.2016 EXHIBIT P2PHOTOSTAT COPY O THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2016 EXHIBIT P3PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.2198/2018 DATED 22.03.2019 EXHIBIT P4PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN GAC NO.07/2916 DATED 30.09.2019 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 11 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 97/2020`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.C.NO.33/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 06.06.2016 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2016 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 2278/2018 DATED 22.03.2019 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN GAC NO.08/2016 DATED 30.9.2019 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 12 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 100/2020`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.C.NO.30/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 06.06.2016 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2016 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 2271/2018 DATED 22.3.2019 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN GAC NO.09/2016 DATED 30.9.2019 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 73 OF 2020 & Conn. Cases ``` ``` 13 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 73/2020`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDR IN G.C NO. 34/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 06-06-2016 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22-10-2016 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 2279/2018 DATED 22-03-2019 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN GAC NO. 10/2016 DATED 30-09-2019. ```