IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2007 / 8TH ASHADHA 1929 OP.No. 26323 of 2002(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI,SC FOR RAIL SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. SMT.C.I.CHINNA, CHATHAMALA HOUSE, PAKKIL P.O., CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972), KALATHIL PARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972), KALATHIL PARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR, ADDL.CGSC for R2 & R3 SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH for R1. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD, ON 27/06/2007, ALONG WITH O.P. NO. 29507/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 26323/2002 : 2 : ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 44723 IN O.P. NO. 26323/2002 DISMISSED 29.06.2007 SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. GA NO. 48(37)99 DT. 21.01.99 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 25.03.99 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.99 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 28/99 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2002 BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER THE CAT, EKM IN OA 106/1994 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DT. 30.06.2000. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. KURIAN JOSEPH , J ================================== O.P. Nos. 26323 & 29507 OF 2002 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007. JUDGMENT The issue raised in these writ petitions pertains to the dispute as to whether casual service can be counted for the purpose of computation of gratuity. The main contention of the petitioner is that in the process, the recipients are getting double advantage. There are interim orders in both the cases. The writ petitions are disposed of making it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to examine whether there is double advantage. Only to the extent of recovery or the double advantage alone, the orders are interfered with. The needful in this regard with notice to the affected parties shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. rv