IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 OP.No. 18659 of 1998(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE THRISSUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.87 THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER M.R.JAYENDRAN, S/O.M.K.RAMAN, AGED 38 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKITESH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT) 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972) 3. M.L.DEVASSY, S/O.LONAPPAN, MANNUTHY HOUSE, PARANATTANI, THRISSUR – 5. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN (R3) BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P.No.18659 of 1998 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that third respondent passed away more than two years back. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner concurs with the said submission. However, the petitioner has not taken steps to implead the legal heirs of the deceased third respondent. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenge the orders passed by the Controlling Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the appellate order passed by the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, the appellate authority constituted under the said Act. By the orders impugned in the writ petition, the entitlement of the third respondent for payment of gratuity has been upheld. On the death of the third respondent, his legal heirs became entitled to the benefits throwing from the impugned orders. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has not taken steps to implead the legal heirs of the third respondent, the writ petition has OP.No.18659 of 1998 2 abated. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal heirs have come to a settlement with the petitioner and have received payment of the gratuity. In such circumstances, I find no reason to keep this Original Petition pending. It is accordingly dismissed as abated, with the observation that if the legal heirs have not received payment of gratuity, pursuant to the impugned orders, either on the terms of the said orders or on the basis of the agreement, if any, entered into with the petitioner, it will be open to them to enforce the impugned orders. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P.No.18659 of 1998 J U D G M E N T Dated: 9th July, 2010 -------------------------------