IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31579 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. SASEENDRAN, SREEDEVI NIVAS, KUMBIDI P.O., PALAKKAD DIST.-53. BY ADV. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CONTROLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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