IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31108 of 2008(C)
1. ANANDAN, SIMLA KIZHAKKATHIL,
... Petitioner
2. SARASWATHY, SARASWATHI SADANAM,
3. RAJAMMA, GEETHA MANDIRAM,
4. OMANA, ANANDA VILASOM, PERAYAM, ESTATE
5. POWLY, KALANGUVILA
6. SARASWATHY AMMA,
7. THANKAMMA, SANTHOSH MANDIRAM,
8. SAVITHRI, CHARUVILA VEEDU,
9. SARASAMMA, CHIRAKKARA PUTHENVEEDU,
10. NALINI, KUTHIKKATTUVILAVEEDU,
11. INDIRA, MELATHILVEEDU,
12. SARASAMMA, KOCHUKUNUMPURATHU VEEDU,
13. RAJAMMA, CHAMAVILA,
14. NANI, NELLIKKAVILA VADAKKATHIL,
15. SUMATHI, CHARUVILA VEEDU,
16. GOMATHI, CHARUVILA VEEDU,
17. SHERIFA BEEVI, THADAVILA PUTHENVEEDU,
18. RAJAMMA, ASARIVILA, THAZHAMTHEKKU.
19. BABY, CHIRAKKARA PUTHENVEEDU,
20. AMBUJAKSHYA AMMA, NADAYIL
21. SUMATHI, THUMPARA MELETHIL
22. RAJAMMA, THUMPARA MELATHILVEEDU,
23. VASANTHAKUMARY, MUNDAKKALTHODI,
24. AYSHA BEEVI, MAVILAZHIKOM,
25. BHANUMATHI, KIZHAKKEATTATHU,
26. S.RAMAKRISHNAN, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU,
27. VILASINI, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU,
28. RUKHIYA UMMA,
29. RATNAMMA, KUMARAVILASOM,
30. MEENAKSHI, SHEEBA BHAVAN,
31. DEVASANAN, CHALUVILA PADINNJATTATHIL,
32. DEVAKI AMMA, MURALCE MANDIRAM,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.PRASAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :05/10/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.31108 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are retired employees of the 1st respondent
Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Their grievance in
this writ petition is that gratuity due to them has not been paid by the
1st respondent, although the petitioners retired years ago. The
petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs:
“1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the gratuity due
to the petitioners with interest forthwith.
2. To issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions,
which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice, including a
direction for payment of cost of this proceedings to the petitioners.”
2. A statement has been filed by the Corporation, in which the
only contention raised is that because of paucity of funds, they are not
able to pay gratuity due to their retired employees. Although in
O.P.No.6586/2002 a learned Single Judge of this Court had permitted
the 1st respondent to pay gratuity in accordance with the priority of the
date of retirement, that was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A.
No.1079/2002. The counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that
that matter has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and in
those cases, the judgments of this Court have been stayed. Despite
the contentions raised by the 1st respondent, in so far as the liability is
2
not disputed, I do not think that the petitioners should be denied their
statutory right. In fact in Ext.P1 judgment in respect of similar
employees I had directed payment of gratuity within a period of four
months.
3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is also
disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pay gratuity due to
the petitioners within a period of four months from today along with
interest. However, I note the submission made by the counsel for the
1st respondent that out of the 32 petitioners, gratuity due to nine of
them has already been disbursed, which is not disputed by the counsel
for the petitioners.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge