IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33292 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.E.KUMARA PILLAI, TC 29/869, AYIKKARA VILAKOM, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029 2. G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, LAVANYA, TC 29/1460, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 029. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.C. NO. 6917/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 33292/2008. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 20-10-2007 EXT.P2 DO. DT. 19-6-2007. EXT.P3 NOTICE DT. 7-1-2008. EXT.P4 NOTICE DT. 12-11-2007 EXT.P5 LETTER DT. 14-7-2008. EXT.P5(a) STAY ORDER DT. 7-7-2008 OF SUPREME COUORT IN C.C.7744-7745/08. EXT.P6 NOTICE DT. 10-10-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) Nos. 33292/2008 & 6917/2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T W.P(C) No. 33292/2008. The petitioners in this writ petition are retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. In view of the judgment of this Court holding that the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board are also covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act for the purpose of payment of gratuity, the petitioners filed Exts.P1 and P2 applications before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, seeking payment of gratuity short paid. The grievance of the petitioners is that the controlling authority is not considering their applications in view of Ext. P5 communication from the Kerala State Electricity Board to the Labour Commissioner, Government of Kerala. 2. This situation arose in the following circumstances. Some employees approached this Court claiming that the retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board are entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that the Kerala State Electricity Board is also covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act and they are bound to pay gratuity to the retired employees of the Board in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act. That was taken in appeal before the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1062/2003 and connected cases. The Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Board filed appeals before the Supreme Court, in which there is a stay of the judgment. It is in view of the said stay that the Kerala State Electricity Board had issued Ext. P5 communication to the Labour Commissioner requesting that in view of the stay order of the Supreme Court, action in all pending cases of gratuity relating to employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board shall be dropped W.P.Cs. 33292/08 & 6917/09 -: 2 :- forthwith. It appears that pursuant to Ext. P5, the Labour Commissioner of Kerala Government had issued directions to all controlling authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act in the subject to keep the gratuity cases in respect of the Kerala State Electricity Board pending. In view of the same, the petitioners' applications for gratuity are not being considered by the 3rd respondent, who is the controlling authority under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now the controlling authorities in the State are not even accepting applications for gratuity by retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. 3. I am of opinion that the action of the respondents are totally against law. A Division Bench of this Court has already held that employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board are entitled to get gratuity in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act. That judgment is binding not only on the Kerala State Electricity Board but also on the Government of Kerala as well as the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Simply because in one of the cases, the Supreme Court has granted a stay, the Kerala State Electricity Board and the State Government have absolutely no jurisdiction to issue directions to statutory authorities not to exercise their statutory function under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court has in Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another, 2009 (4) KHC 283 (D.B), held that even when a decision of a Division Bench of this Court is stayed by the Apex Court, the learned Single Judges of this Court are bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench as it continues to be a binding precedent for them. It was also held that interim order of stay granted by the Supreme Court only relieves to the parties to the judgment under appeal from complying with the directions in that W.P.Cs. 33292/08 & 6917/09 -: 3 :- judgment till disposal of the appeal. If that is the legal position as far as Single Judges of this Court are concerned, it goes without saying that the legal position applies to all authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to direct respondents 3 and 4 not to entertain applications and appeals under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 4. In that view, Ext. P5 is hereby quashed. The controlling authorities and the appellate authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act in the State are directed to continue entertaining and disposing of claims and appeals under the Payment of Gratuity Act in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act uninfluenced by any directions by the Kerala State Electricity Board or the State of Kerala against the provisions of the said Act. In this case, the 3rd respondent - controlling authority shall immediately take up Exts.P.1 and P2 applications submitted by the petitioners and pass orders on the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P(C) No. 6917/2009 5. In this writ petition, the contention of the petitioner is that the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act-the 2nd respondent herein, is sitting on the appeal filed by the Board against Ext. P1 order, apparently in view of the stay granted by the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. The reasoning given in my judgment in W.P(C) No. 33292/2008 squarely applies to this case also. 6. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal pending before him filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.Cs. 33292/08 & 6917/09 -: 4 :- 7. Now, that a Division Bench has held that the retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board are entitled to payment of gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, the amount deposited by the Board as a condition for maintaining the appeal has to be disbursed to the petitioner. But, a Division Bench of this Court has in W.A.No. 883/2009 imposed certain conditions for such disbursal. Accordingly, following the directions in that judgment, I direct the 2nd respondent as follows: It is directed that if the appeal pending before the Supreme Court is not disposed of within four months from today, the additional gratuity found due to the petitioner herein shall be released to him on his executing a bond with two other serving employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board as sureties for refund of the amount if the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending appeals is in favour of the K.S.E.B. If, for any reason, the petitioner is unable to find two serving employees to stand as sureties for releasing the additional gratuity amount, it shall be released to him after the disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court with 10% interest from the date of his retirement. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/