IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31579 of 2009(N)
1. K. SASEENDRAN, SREEDEVI NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE
3. THE CONTROLING AUTHORITY UNDER
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :14/12/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 31579 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 14th December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State
Electricity Board. Taking the contention that he is eligible for
payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner
approached the 3rd respondent-controlling authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act and obtained Ext. P1 order for payment of
additional gratuity. The petitioner has filed this writ petition
complaining that the amounts covered by Ext. P1 has not been given
to the petitioner.
2. On 23-11-2009, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala
State Electricity Board submitted before me that the amount of
gratuity has already been deposited before the Regional Labour
Commissioner, Ernakulam in July, 2007. Accordingly, I directed the
learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the
amount has been so deposited and if deposited, why the same was
not disbursed to the petitioner. Today, the learned Government
Pleader submits that the amount has been so deposited, but it could
not be disbursed to the petitioner since the Electricity Board
informed that in respect of similar matters, the Supreme Court had
passed an order of stay.
3. The order of stay by the Supreme Court is against the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court holding that Payment of
Gratuity Act is applicable to the Kerala State Electricity Board. A
Division Bench of this Court has, in Abdu Rahiman v. District
Collector, Malappuram & another, 2009 (4) KHC 283 (DB) held
that even when a Division Bench decision of this Court is stayed by
the Supreme Court, learned Single Judges of this Court are bound by
the ratio of that decision when considering similar other matters.
Further, another Division Bench had passed certain orders to
W.P.C. No. 31579/09 -: 2 :-
safeguard the interest of the Board, if, ultimately, the Supreme Court
decides the case in favour of the Board. Accordingly, considering all
these factors, I dispose of this writ petition with the following
directions.
If, even after four months from today, the appeal before the
Supreme Court remains undisposed of, the amount covered by Ext.
P1 shall be released to the petitioner by the Regional Joint Labour
Commissioner, Ernakulam on the petitioner executing a bond with
two serving employees of the Board as sureties for due repayment of
the amount so received, if, ultimately the Supreme Court decides the
case pending before it in favour of the Board. If the petitioner is
unable to get any serving employee as surety, the amount need be
disbursed only after the Supreme Court finally disposes of the appeal
pending before it. However, in that event, the petitioner would be
entitled to get interest at the rate of 10% p.m. on the amount in
deposit before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge