IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 87 of 2009(S)
1. M.P. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. E. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS,
Vs
1. SHRI. SUBAIR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Cont. Case (C) No. 87 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 11th June, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This contempt case is filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.
10559/2008 complaining that the directions in Annexure A1 judgment
have not been complied with. Annexure A1 judgment reads thus:
“The petitioners obtained orders for payment of gratuity
due to them from the 1st respondent, by proceedings under the
Payment of Gratuity Act. They are aggrieved by non-payment of
amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the Controlling
Authority and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent submitted that amounts have been deposited with the
Controlling Authority/Appellate Authority. I directed the
Government Pleader to get instructions from respondents 2 and 3
as to whether the amounts deposited have not been disbursed.
The learned Government Pleader today submits that the
Controlling Authority has issued notice to the 1st respondent and
no reply has been received. Accordingly, this writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to see that the
proceedings of disbursal of the amounts deposited are completed
within a period of one month from today.”
2. According to respondent, the amount as directed by the
Controlling Authority was deposited as required under law on 19-5-
2009 without interest. Later on, interest was also deposited in 2009.
Although an appeal was filed against the order of the Controlling
Authority, no stay was granted. The petitioners’ contention is that in
so far as despite an application in that regard, the amount was not
disbursed to the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to interest as
on the date of payment to the petitioners and not till the date of
deposit before the authorities. The learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that once they deposited the amount in full
with interest up to the date of deposit, they cannot be made liable for
any further interest. I am of opinion that this is a question of law,
which has to be taken up and got resolved appropriately by the
Cont. Case (C) No. 87/2009. -: 2 :-
petitioners. I do not think that for non-payment of interest
subsequent to the date of deposit, a contempt case as such would lie.
Accordingly, the contempt case is closed without prejudice to
the right of the petitioners to take up the matter appropriately in
accordance with law.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.