State-appointed authority's order quashed; Central Government's Controlling Authority holds rightful jurisdiction over multi-state establishments.
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has quashed the orders of the State-appointed Controlling Authority regarding gratuity claims, underscoring the jurisdiction of the Central Government's Controlling Authority for establishments with branches across multiple states. The judgment, delivered by Justice Gopinath P., addresses the jurisdictional conflict under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The case was brought forward by M/s. Kosamattam Finance Ltd., which challenged the orders (Exts.P7 and P8) of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam, acting as the Controlling Authority under the said Act. The petitioner argued that their multi-state presence necessitated the involvement of the Central Government-appointed Controlling Authority, as per Section 2(a) and 2(d) of the Act.
The petitioner, represented by a team of advocates led by Sri. Jolly John, contended that since the claim involved services rendered in a branch located in another state (Tamil Nadu), the State Government-appointed authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner cited the statutory provisions supporting their claim that only the Central Government's authority could adjudicate such matters.
The respondent, represented by advocate Sri. T.R. Jagadeesh, argued the petitioner's failure to initially object to the jurisdiction and highlighted an alternative remedy available, suggesting that the writ petition should not bypass this remedy.
Justice Gopinath P. clarified that jurisdiction could not be conferred by consent and that statutory provisions must dictate jurisdiction. The court emphasized that an order challenged on jurisdictional grounds could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, regardless of any alternative remedies.
Concluding the proceedings, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and directing that the respondent's claim could be rightfully pursued before the Central Government's Controlling Authority. This decision reinforces the statutory framework governing jurisdiction and protects the procedural rights of establishments operating across state lines.
Bottom Line:
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Jurisdiction of Controlling Authority - Establishments having branches in more than one State - Controlling Authority appointed by the Central Government has jurisdiction to decide gratuity claims, not the State Government authority.
Statutory provision(s):
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Sections 2(a), 2(d); Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
M/s. Kosamattam Finance Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853883
