IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17872 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS : -------------------- 1. P.N.JANAMMA,W/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY ASARI PUNNATHAZHETH, THULAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SAINABA BEEVI, CHARUVUPURAYIDATHIL, THULAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THANKAPPAN NAIR, PANICHAYIL, THULAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.` BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SREENARAYANA DAS SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., P.B.NO.13, NELLIPPALLY P.O., PUNALOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB - R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 17872 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are employees retired from the Nilackal Estate, which is a plantation owned and managed by the 3rd respondent, Devaswom Board purchased by the Board from the 2nd respondent. Gratuity due to the petitioners have not been paid yet. In the above circumstances, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs in this writ petition: a) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioners, the retirement benefits due to them immediately. b) Direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P7 without delay. 2. The standing counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that there is a dispute between the respondents 2 and 3 as to who should pay the gratuity due to the employees of the Estate, in respect of the service put in by them while the Estate was owned and run by the 2nd respondent. The standing counsel would therefore submit that the 3rd respondent is willing to pay gratuity due to the petitioners on the basis of the service put in by them in W.P.(C).No. 17872 OF 2008 2 the Estate under the management of the 3rd respondent. 3. The counsel for the petitioners would contend that as far as the petitioners are concerned, since the 3rd respondent had taken over the Estate as a going concern and had absorbed all employees of the Estate with all liabilities in respect of their past service also the 3rd respondent is bound to pay gratuity due to the petitioners, taking into account the service put in by them under the 2nd respondent also. Counsel for the petitioner would also assert that the petitioners have not been paid any gratuity or compensation by the 2nd respondent at the time of take over by the 3rd respondent. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The 3rd respondent does not dispute the fact that the Estate was taken over by the 3rd respondent from the 2nd respondent as a going concern. The 3rd respondent also does not have a case that the employees of the Estate were retrenched from service by paying compensation and then reemployed under the 3rd respondent. That being so, the liability to pay gratuity to the petitioners is on the 3rd respondent, taking into account the service put in by the petitioners under the 2nd respondent also. If W.P.(C).No. 17872 OF 2008 3 there is any understanding between the 2nd and 3rd respondents, regarding the payment of service benefits to the employees of the Estate, it is for the 3rd respondent to take it up with 2nd respondent appropriately, for recovering any amounts which have been paid to the petitioners. That cannot stand in the way of the 3rd respondent paying gratuity due to the petitioner taking into account the entire service of the petitioners both under the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 6. In view of the above situation, the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent seeks three months' time to pay gratuity due to the petitioners . Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to pay the entire gratuity due to the petitioners, taking into account their entire service put in by them, under both 2nd and 3rd respondents, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-