Resulted In Injustice: Kerala HC On Appellate Authority’s Order Denying Short Adjournment Despite Informing It About Illness Of Counsel
The Kerala High Court observed that that the order of the Appellate Authority (under the Payment Of Gratuity Act) resulted in injustice as it denied adjournment in a case even though it was informed about the illness of the counsel
The bench of Justice N Nagaresh observed, “the Appellate Authority ought to have granted further adjournment and heard the petitioner on merits, on the legal issue involved. Failure to do so has resulted in injustice to the petitioner.”
Advocate Nanda Surendran appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate KK Chandran Pillai appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner, a former Vice President of the Respondent bank was dissatisfied with the gratuity paid after he resigned. He sought an additional amount through the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which ruled in his favour. The Respondent bank appealed the decision, in which during multiple hearings, Petitioner's Counsel was absent due to illness. Despite requests for adjournments, the Appellate Authority ultimately allowed the bank's Appeal, reversing the Controlling Authority’s order. Hence, the present Appeal.
The Court noted that the short adjournment was given disregarding the nature of the ailment.
The Court further noted that though the counsel sought further adjournment due to medical condition, no order was passed on adjournment request.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Unnikrishna Pillai PV v. HDFC Bank Limited. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:78626)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Nanda Surendran
Respondent: Senior Advocate KK Chandran Pillai, Advocates K Sudhinkumar, P. Benny Thomas, D Prem Kamath, Tom Thomas, Abel Tom Benny, Aaron Zacharias Benny, Praisy Thomas, Amrutha Selvam and Bharath Nair
