High Court Kerala High Court

T.Kumaran vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 22 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
T.Kumaran vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 22 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31832 of 2009(Y)


1. T.KUMARAN,S/O.CHATHU,AGED 67 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :22/12/2009

 O R D E R
                         S.SIRI JAGAN,J.
                       -------------------------
                  W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009
                       --------------------------
            Dated this the 22nd December,2009

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala

State Electricity Board. He was paid gratuity in

accordance with the Kerala Service Rules which were

adopted by the Kerala State Electricity Board for their

employees. On the contention that the petitioner is

entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of

Gratuity Act, petitioner filed a Gratuity Case before the

2nd respondent Controlling Authority under the payment

of Gratuity Act, who, by Ext.P1 order, allowed the claim

and directed the Electricity Board to pay additional

gratuity to the petitioner. Petitioner’s grievance in this

writ petition is that the amount covered by Ext.P1 has not

been paid to the petitioner.

2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the

Kerala State Electricity Board submits that the amount

covered by Ext.P1 order has been deposited before the

Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode on

21.3.2006.

W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009
2

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that even if it has been so deposited, it has not

been disbursed to the petitioner. According to him, on

enquiry, the respondents submitted that the amount

deposited cannot be disbursed since an appeal filed by the

Electricity Board against the judgment which has been

relied on in Ext.P1 for allowing the claim of the petitioner

is pending before the Supreme Court, in which, there is a

stay also.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the Electricity

Board and the learned Government Pleader.

5. It is true that the appeal against the judgment

of the Division Bench of this Court holding that the

Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the employees of

the Kerala State Electricity Board is pending before the

Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has granted a stay

of operation of the judgment. But a Division Bench of this

Court has in Abdul Rahiman Vs. The District Collector,

W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009
3

Malappuram [2009 (4) KHC 283] held that even when a

decision of the Division Bench is stayed by the Supreme

Court, the learned Single Judges of this Court are bound by

the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench and in

identical matters coming up before them, the learned

Single Judges are bound to follow the ratio of the said

decision notwithstanding the stay granted by the Supreme

Court. However, a Division Bench of this Court has passed

certain orders to safeguard the interest of the Board in the

event of they ultimately succeeding in the appeal pending

before the Supreme Court.

6. Following those decisions, I dispose of this writ

petition with the following directions.

Even after four months from today, the Board is not

able to get the appeal pending before the Supreme Court

disposed of, the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner,

Kozhikode shall disburse the amount in deposit with him to

the petitioner, on the petitioner executing a bond with two

serving employees of the Board as sureties for due

repayment of the amount in the event of the Electricity

W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009
4

Board succeeding in the appeal pending before the

Supreme Court. If the petitioner is unable to find serving

employees of the Board as sureties, the amount need be

disbursed only after the appeal is finally disposed of by the

Supreme Court. In that event, the petitioner would be

further entitled to 10% interest on the amount in deposit.

It would also be open to the petitioner to get the amount

released after four months on furnishing security by way

of a Bank Guarantee instead of a bond with two sureties as

directed above.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

ma

W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009
5

W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009
6