High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 08 KL CK 0193

Palakkad Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 31 August 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sathish Ninan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No.2813 Of 2021

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 372 words

Sathish Ninan, J

1.

The third respondent is the son of late Nagappan, an erstwhile employee of the petitioner Society. As directed by this Court in Ext P2 judgment

dated 05.03.2015 and Ext P3 order dated 17.01.2018, the 2nd respondent â€" Joint Registrar considered the claim of Nagappan for gratuity, leave

surrender and pension contribution. The 2nd respondent passed Ext P4 order dated 20.10.2018, directing payment of Rs.2,71,500/- towards gratuity,

Rs.1,81,000/- towards leave salary and Rs.1,05,336/-as pension contribution. Challenging the said order, the petitioner â€" Society preferred Ext P5

Revision Petition before the 1st respondent. On the revision, the 1st respondent passed Ext P8 order dated 07.12.2020, dismissing the revision. It is

challenging the said order that the petitioner â€" Society is before this Court.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the learned Government Pleader.

3.

The petitioner was not heard prior to passing of the order, is the initial ground of challenge against Ext.P8.

4.

Ext P6 is the notice issued by the s1t respondent fixing the date of hearing at 2 p.m on 16.09.2019. The learned counsel for the

petitioner points out that, as per Ext P7 communication the petitioner had informed the 1st respondent that the notice of hearing was received by the

petitioner only on 18.09.2019, ie., after the date fixed for hearing. The petitioner contends that though Ext P8 order was passed only on 07.12.2020,

subsequent to Ext P6 no further notice of hearing was served on the Society.

5.

I do not consider it necessary to venture into an enquiry and finding as to whether there was a subsequent notice or not. This is so in view of the

fact that, even as stated in Ext P6, the Society was not heard consequent on their non-appearance. I consider it only appropriate that the petitioner be

granted an opportunity of hearing on their Revision Petition.

Accordingly, Ext P8 order is set aside. The 1st respondent shall hear and pass fresh orders on Ext P5 Revision Petition, with due notice to the

petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Let orders be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is allowed as above.