IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33441 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.K.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 66,PARAVARKANDY HOUSE, THIRUVALLOR P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 2. R.HAREENDRAN,AGED 65, 'KRISHNALAYAM' P.O.MOYILOTHARA, KOZHIKODE. 3. K.V.GOVINDANKUTTY NAMBIAR, AGED 64, 'VANDANAM'P.O. VALAYAM,VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 4. M.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 66, MORULATH HOUSE, PERUMANNA P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 5. T.K.SREEHDARAN, AGED 65, THATTANKANDIYIL HOUSE, CHOROD P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 6. K.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 67,'ANASWARA' MUTTUNGAL P.O.,VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 7. A.SREENIVASAN, AGED 64,'SREE GOVINDAM' PARAPPANPOYIL P.O.,THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 8. P.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 63,'RAVATHI' CHEMMARATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE. 9. K.SANKARAN,AGED 67, PONMERI HOUSE, MADAPPALLI COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE. 10. M.NALINI, AGED 66,KUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE. 11. P.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 65 YEARS, KOZHAPPAYIL HOUSE, VENGERI P.O. KOZHIKODE. 12. B.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 62, MEETHAL CHANGADATH HOUSE, PURAKKAD P.O. MALADY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.SAJU SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONR, CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE. 2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV.K.S.ANIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.33441 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in this writ petition are retired employees of the KSEB. The petitioners approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking a direction to the Board to disburse the balance gratuity due to them as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, which was allowed by the Controlling Authority. Although an appeal has been filed by the KSEB against the order of the Controlling Authority, no orders have been passed on the same. In the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the KSEB to pay to the petitioners the balance gratuity as ordered by the Controlling Authority. 2. The learned standing counsel for the KSEB would contend that the decision of the Division Bench based on which the impugned orders have been passed, has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has already stayed the operation of that judgment. Therefore, according to the Standing Counsel, the amounts should not be directed to be disbursed to the petitioners until the Supreme Court finally decides the matter, although amounts have been deposited with the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act. w.p.c.33441/09 2 3. I have heard both sides. 4. This Court in the decision in Abdul Rehiman v. District Collector, Malappuram [2009 (4) KHC 283] has 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 law declared by the Division Bench, until the same has been set aside by the Supreme Court. That being so, in this case, although the Division Bench judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. But another Division Bench has issued certain directions to safeguard the interest of the Board in the event of the Board ultimately succeeding before the Supreme Court, which are to be followed in this case also. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: If, within four months, the Board is not able to get the appeal before the Supreme Court disposed of regarding the subject matter, the gratuity amounts deposited shall be disbursed to the petitioners on the petitioners furnishing bonds with two serving employees of the Board as sureties for due repayment of the amounts so disbursed, if ultimately the Supreme Court decides the cases in favour of the Board. If the petitioners are not able to find two serving employees of the w.p.c.33441/09 3 Board as sureties, the amounts need be disbursed only after disposal of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court. But in that event, the Board would be liable pay further interest at the rate of 10% on the amounts so due. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge