CWP No.843 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.843 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.08.2010 **** Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. The Regional Labour Commissioner & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. PS Mattewal, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr. GS Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner – the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board seeks quashing of the order dated 26.02.2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby, the application moved by respondent No.3, namely, Jit Ram s/o Bhagat Ram for payment of Gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 instead of paying Gratuity as a part of pension under the Punjab Civil Service Rules, has been allowed. The said order has been further upheld by the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Chandigarh, vide its order dated 19.05.2008 (Annexure P2). Aggrieved, the petitioner has aggrieved this Court. CWP No.843 of 2009.doc - 2 – 2. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.18329 of 2008 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Others, and other connected matters, wherein this Court while allowing the same on 10.08.2010 held as follows:- “The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.06.2006 & 28.06.2007 (Annexure P4 & P6, respectively) are hereby quashed subject to the binding nature of the decision in the SLP said to have been preferred by the employees before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid Division Bench decision in Balwant Singh’s case (supra). It needs to be mentioned here that learned counsel for the petitioner-Board undertakes that in case the Division Bench judgement in Balwant Singh’s and other connected cases is reversed/modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the employees, namely, the private respondents in these cases shall also be entitled to the same benefit as may be admissible in terms of the final orders by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is accordingly directed that notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition has been allowed or the orders by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the 1972 Act, have been set aside, if the other employees whose matters are still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court succeed wholly or in part, the benefit flowing from the Apex Court orders shall be made available to the respondent-employee (s) also within a period of four months from the date of passing of such orders by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 3. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 11.08.2010 CWP No.843 of 2009.doc - 3 – vishal shonkar