IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30369 of 2009(M)
1. M.V.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 65,
... Petitioner
2. N.K.DAMODARAN,AGED 65,
3. M.K.GOPALAN,AGED 64,'KANCHANA',
4. BHASKARAN NAIR,AGED 66,'BINDU NIVAS',
5. V.P.SREENIVASAN,AGED 69,'REMYA',
6. M.PHILIP,AGED 64,'MAMAMPURATH',
7. ABDUL SHUKKUR,AGED 63,'OASIS',
8. KUNHIKANNAN.C,AGED 65,MANAKKATTU PARAMBA
9. V.S.KOYATTY,AGED 59,DARUL VADEEH,
10. E.DAKSHAYANI,AGED 64,SUDHARSANAM,
11. P.GOPALANKUTTY,AGED 65,THATTARAYIL
12. K.ASOKAN,AGED 64,PARIJATHAM,
Vs
1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PARMENT
... Respondent
2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE
3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.K.SAJU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :13/11/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 30369 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 13th November, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners in this writ petition are retired employees of the
Kerala State Electricity Board. They have obtained orders from the
controlling authority and appellate authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act directing the Board to pay additional gratuity to the
petitioners in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act. The
petitioners’ grievance in this writ petition is that the amount of
gratuity deposited before respondents 1 and 2 are not being
disbursed to them. The petitioners therefore seek the following
reliefs:
“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the first/second respondent to release the
gratuity amount deposited before him forthwith to the petitioners.
2. To direct the respondents to pay the interest accrued on the
balance gratuity amount covered by Ext. P1(a) to P1(k) series
orders passed by the 2nd respondent.
3. To direct the respondents to pay the interest and costs of
this proceedings .”
2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners, standing counsel
for the Kerala State Electricity Board and the learned Government
Pleader.
3. The issue as to whether for the purpose of payment of
gratuity, the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the Kerala
State Electricity Board was the subject matter of several writ
petitions which were decided in favour of the employees by a learned
Single Judge of this Court holding that the Payment of Gratuity Act is
W.P.C. No. 30369/09 -: 2 :-
applicable to the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board also.
The matter was taken in appeal before the Division Bench and the
Division Bench confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge.
The Board has taken the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court
and there is a stay in that case. It is relying upon that stay sorder that
the Kerala State Electricity Board and the State seek to withhold the
payment of gratuity as ordered by the authorities under the Payment
of Gratuity Act.
4. I am of opinion that simply because in one or two cases,
there is a stay by the Supreme Court, the ratio of the decision of the
Division Bench does not cease to be applicable insofar as other cases
are concerned. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court held so in
Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another,
2009(4) KHC 283 (D B). That being so, respondents 1 and 2 cannot
now withhold disbursal of the gratuity deposited by the 3rd
respondent before them on the ground of the stay by the Supreme
Court in another case. But, at the same time, some safeguard has to
be made in the event of the Board succeeding in the appeals pending
before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed
of with the following directions:
If there is further delay in disposal of the appeal pending before
the Supreme Court on the expiry of the four months from today, the
amount deposited before respondents 1 and 2 shall be disbursed to
the petitioners on the petitioners’ furnishing a bond with two serving
employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board as sureties for refund
of the amounts so received by them if, ultimately, the K.S.E.B.
succeeds in the appeal before the Supreme Court. If the petitioners
W.P.C. No. 30369/09 -: 3 :-
are unable to find serving employees as sureties, the amount need be
disbursed only after the decision of the Supreme Court. However, if
the Supreme Court decides in favour of the employees, the Board
shall pay 10% interest also on the amounts due to the employees.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.