IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33295 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.K.VIJAYAN, RETIRED TURNER GRADE I KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, RESIDING AT THARANILATH HOUSE, ADIMALY. 2. A.V.RAJAPPAN, RETIRED DRIVER SPECIAL GRADE I KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, RESIDING AT AMBATTU ROAD, MACHIPLAVU P.O CHATTUPARA, ADIMALY. 3. P.P.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, RESIDING AT AMBADY SREE, ADIMALY. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972). 4. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972). ADV.K.S.ANIL, SC SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.33295 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. They were paid gratuity as per the Rules of the KSEB, who has adopted the Kerala Service Rules for that purpose. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to payment of gratuity as calculated under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, they filed gratuity applications before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. That was allowed. The Electricity Board filed three appeals. The same have not been disposed of. In the meantime, by Ext.P9, the Government has informed the 1st petitioner that in view of the stay by the Supreme Court in SLP Nos.7744/08 and 7745/08 filed by the KSEB in similar cases, all proceedings in gratuity cases filed by the petitioners have been directed to be kept in abeyance. According to the petitioners, the Government has no power to interfere with the statutory functions of the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading upto Ext.P9 and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 to P6 appeals in accordance with law expeditiously and in any event within a time limit fixed by 2 this Hon'ble Court.” 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader. 3. A Division Bench of this Court has held that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to Kerala State Electricity Board and its employees. Therefore, Board is liable to pay to its retired employees gratuity as calculated under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It is true that there is a stay by the Supreme Court in the appeals filed against that judgment. But that does not mean that the law as declared by the Division Bench is not to be applied in similar cases. In fact a Division Bench of this Court has in Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, 2009 (4) KHC 283, held that despite the fact that the Division Bench judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judges of this Court are bound by the law declared by the Division Bench in the decision under appeal and they are bound to dispose of other cases before them in accordance with the law so laid down. If the learned Single Judges of this Court are bound by the same, naturally the Electricity Board, the Government and the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act are also bound by the law as laid down by the Division Bench. In any event, the Government has no power whatsoever to interdict the functions of statutory authorities 3 under the Payment of Gratuity Act even on the ground that the decision of the Division Bench has been stayed by the Supreme Court. As such, Ext.P9 is clearly without jurisdiction and the same is quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeals filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board against the orders of the controlling authority in the gratuity applications filed by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge