G SIMON Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals are filed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent in W.P(C) No. 29015/2006. The 4th respondent is a Co-operative Bank. They dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 1.3.1980. He raised an industrial dispute which was decided in his favour and he was directed to be reinstated with full backwages, continuity in service and other service benefits. A legal battle ensued. Ultimately, this Court came to the conclusion that since the establishment in which the petitioner was working was closed down on 29.6.1986, the Labour Court should re-examine the relief to be granted to the petitioner. But the employer was directed to pay to the petitioner wages for the period from 1.3.1980 to 29.6.1986. The Labour Court thereafter passed a revised award holding that the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement since the ration shop had been closed. The petitioner's challenge against that award did not succeed. Thereafter, he moved the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies (General), Kollam seeking a direction to the bank to pay gratuity for the service rendered by the petitioner from 10.3.1965 till 29.6.1986. Being unsuccessful in his attempt, he filed the writ petition seeking two reliefs. The first is for a direction to pay to the petitioner gratuity and other retirement benefits due to him. The second is for a direction to the respondents to take steps to disburse pension to the petitioner with arrears and interest. The learned Single Judge after hearing the writ petition, directed the bank to pay to the petitioner gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and also to pay interest on the same at the applicable rates. But, the claim of the petitioner for pension was rejected holding that the petitioner did not plead or prove that the petitioner was a member of the pension fund administered by the society or by the Pension Board or by the Employees Provident Fund Organization. The petitioner is challenging the finding denying pension to him in W.A.No. 1343/2010. The bank challenges the direction to pay to the petitioner gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

(2.) The bank would contend that the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the petitioner to the alternate remedy by way of an application before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioner challenges that part of the judgment denying him pension. According to to him, he has specifically stated in the writ petition that he is entitled to pension.

(3.) We have considered the rival contentions in detail.