IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30369 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.V.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 65, 'SANGAMAM',THANDORAPPARA.P.O,KAYANNA, PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE. 2. N.K.DAMODARAN,AGED 65, 'PANDARAKKANDIYIL HOUSE,KOLLAM.P.O, KOYILANDY,KOZHIKODE. 3. M.K.GOPALAN,AGED 64,'KANCHANA', KOLLAM.P.O,KOYILANDY,KOZHIKODE. 4. BHASKARAN NAIR,AGED 66,'BINDU NIVAS', PURAMERI.PO,KOZHIKODE. 5. V.P.SREENIVASAN,AGED 69,'REMYA', MEPPARAMBATH,PUTHIYANGADI.PO,KOZHIKODE. 6. M.PHILIP,AGED 64,'MAMAMPURATH', THEYYAPPARA.PO,KODENCHERY,KOZHIKODE. 7. ABDUL SHUKKUR,AGED 63,'OASIS', VELLIMADUKUNNU.P.O,KOZHIKODE. 8. KUNHIKANNAN.C,AGED 65,MANAKKATTU PARAMBA WEST HILL.P.O,KOZHIKODE. 9. V.S.KOYATTY,AGED 59,DARUL VADEEH, THALANCHERY PARAMBA,PANNIYANKARA,KALLAI.PO, KOZHIKODE. 10. E.DAKSHAYANI,AGED 64,SUDHARSANAM, ARAKKINAR.PO,KOZHIKODE. 11. P.GOPALANKUTTY,AGED 65,THATTARAYIL HOUSE, EDAKKAD.PO,KOZHIKODE. 12. K.ASOKAN,AGED 64,PARIJATHAM, MARIKUNNU.PO,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.SAJU SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PARMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,REGIONAL LABOUR LABOUR COMMISSIONER,CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE. 2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 30369 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners in this writ petition are retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. They have obtained orders from the controlling authority and appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act directing the Board to pay additional gratuity to the petitioners in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that the amount of gratuity deposited before respondents 1 and 2 are not being disbursed to them. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first/second respondent to release the gratuity amount deposited before him forthwith to the petitioners. 2. To direct the respondents to pay the interest accrued on the balance gratuity amount covered by Ext. P1(a) to P1(k) series orders passed by the 2nd respondent. 3. To direct the respondents to pay the interest and costs of this proceedings .” 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners, standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The issue as to whether for the purpose of payment of gratuity, the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the Kerala State Electricity Board was the subject matter of several writ petitions which were decided in favour of the employees by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the Payment of Gratuity Act is W.P.C. No. 30369/09 -: 2 :- applicable to the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board also. The matter was taken in appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Board has taken the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court and there is a stay in that case. It is relying upon that stay sorder that the Kerala State Electricity Board and the State seek to withhold the payment of gratuity as ordered by the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 4. I am of opinion that simply because in one or two cases, there is a stay by the Supreme Court, the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench does not cease to be applicable insofar as other cases are concerned. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court held so in Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another, 2009(4) KHC 283 (D B). That being so, respondents 1 and 2 cannot now withhold disbursal of the gratuity deposited by the 3rd respondent before them on the ground of the stay by the Supreme Court in another case. But, at the same time, some safeguard has to be made in the event of the Board succeeding in the appeals pending before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: If there is further delay in disposal of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court on the expiry of the four months from today, the amount deposited before respondents 1 and 2 shall be disbursed to the petitioners on the petitioners' furnishing a bond with two serving employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board as sureties for refund of the amounts so received by them if, ultimately, the K.S.E.B. succeeds in the appeal before the Supreme Court. If the petitioners W.P.C. No. 30369/09 -: 3 :- are unable to find serving employees as sureties, the amount need be disbursed only after the decision of the Supreme Court. However, if the Supreme Court decides in favour of the employees, the Board shall pay 10% interest also on the amounts due to the employees. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.