IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36175 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.K.A.RAJAN, K.R.A.B.NIVAS, PERUVA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUITHI BHAVAN, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, (THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972), KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. MR. K.S.SANIL,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 36190 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) Nos. 36175 & 36190 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. They filed applications before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for direction to the Board to pay, balance gratuity as calculated under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court holding that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board, the authority allowed the application and directed the Board to pay additional gratuity to the petitioner. That amount has been deposited with the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act are not releasing the amount of gratuity deposited by the Board before the authorities. They therefore seek a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to disburse the gratuity so deposited by the Board. 2. The learned Government Pleader as well as the Standing W.P(C) Nos. 36175 & 36190 of 2009 -2- Counsel for the KSEB would submit that since the Division Bench decision of the Court has been stayed by the Supreme Court, if the deposited amount is disbursed to the petitioner it may not be possible for the Board to recover the same from the petitioner if they succeed in the appeal before the Supreme Court. 3. A Division Bench of the court has held in Abdul Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another [2009 (4) KHC 283 (DB)] that even when a decision of this court 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 the learned single Judges are bound to dispose of subsequent cases coming up before them on the same point following that decision. But another Division Bench has issued certain directions to safe guard the interest of the Board in the event of the Supreme Court ultimately allowing the appeal pending before it. Following the same, I dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: If the appeal filed before the Supreme Court still remains undisposed of after four months from today, respondents 1 and 3 W.P(C) Nos. 36175 & 36190 of 2009 -3- shall disburse the amount in deposit, on the petitioners executing bonds with two serving employees of the Board as sureties for due repayment of the amounts if the Board ultimately succeeds in the appeal before the Supreme Court. If the petitioners are unable to find serving employees as sureties, the amounts need to be disbursed only after the Supreme Court finally disposes of the appeal. But in that event the petitioners would be entitled to 10% interest on the amount in deposit. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge