Radha vs M/S a a Nuts,

RADHA vs M/S a a Nuts,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Aug 25, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1379522

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1379522
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias
Decided On: Aug 25, 2023
Case Number: RP/805/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

RADHA

Respondent

M/S a a Nuts,

Excerpt

.....thiruvananthapuram, pin - 695001 3 the regional joint labour commissione office of regional joint labour commissioner, kaankathu mukku, kollam, pin - 691013 4 the deputy labour commissioner (the controlling authority under the payment of gratuity act, 1972), kaankathu mukku, kollam-, pin - 691013by adv esm.kabeer sri gopinathan this review petition having come up for admission on 25.08.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following: :: 2 ::orderdated this the 25th day of august 2023the review petition is filed assailing the judgmentpassed in the writ petition.2. the review petitioner’s case is that she was thefourth respondent in the writ petition, which was filed by the first respondent to set aside ext.p1 order. the writ petition itself was not maintainable in law, as the first respondent is an unregistered firm. this court had allowed the writ petition by dispensing with the notice to the review petitioner. the review petitioner had strong and well sustaining contentions to be raised in the writ petition. however, since this court had dispensed with the notice to the review petitioner, she was denied the opportunity to raise the contention. there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment, which warrants to be reviewed. hence, the review petition. :: 3 ::3. heard; sri.r.kishore, the learned counsel for the review petitioner and sri.esm kabeer, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned government pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.4. indisputably, in paragraph 3 of the judgment,this court had dispensed with notice to the review petitioner for the reason that this court was only directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of ext.p2 application filed by the petitioner, to set aside the ex-parte order, that too after affording the first respondent and the review petitioner an opportunity ofbeing heard. this, i hold is an error apparent on the face of record, which warrants to be reviewed......

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 3RD BHADRA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 21726/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/4th RESPONDENT: RADHA, AGED 64 YEARS W/O JANARDHANAN, CHENAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTENKARA, CHANDANATHOPPE POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691014 BY ADV R.KISHORE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 M/S A A NUTS, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER M.A.ANZAR MOHAMMED, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. M.ABDUL AZEEZ, SHAMAN GARDENS, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691004 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 3 THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONE OFFICE OF REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013 4 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972), KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM-, PIN - 691013
BY ADV ESM.KABEER SRI GOPINATHAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :: 2 ::

ORDER

Dated this the 25th day of August 2023

The review petition is filed assailing the judgment

passed in the writ petition.

2. The review petitioner’s case is that she was the

fourth respondent in the writ petition, which was filed by the first respondent to set aside Ext.P1 order. The writ petition itself was not maintainable in law, as the first respondent is an unregistered firm. This Court had allowed the writ petition by dispensing with the notice to the review petitioner. The review petitioner had strong and well sustaining contentions to be raised in the writ petition. However, since this Court had dispensed with the notice to the review petitioner, she was denied the opportunity to raise the contention. There is an error apparent on the face of the judgment, which warrants to be reviewed. Hence, the review petition. :: 3 ::

3. Heard; Sri.R.Kishore, the learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri.ESM Kabeer, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

4. Indisputably, in paragraph 3 of the judgment,

this Court had dispensed with notice to the review petitioner for the reason that this Court was only directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioner, to set aside the ex-parte order, that too after affording the first respondent and the review petitioner an opportunity of

being heard. This, I hold is an error apparent on the face of record, which warrants to be reviewed. Resultantly, the review petition is allowed, by recalling the judgment dated 10.7.2023 in W.P. (C)No.21726/23. Sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE jes

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties RADHA vs M/S a a Nuts, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias