IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 4037 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KERALA STATE CASHEW WORKERS' APEX INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (CAPEX), P.B.NO.262, MUNDACKAL WEST, H&C COMPUND, KOLLAM-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS.MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- ** DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM AND THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT.(CORRECTED) DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA AND THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT. *ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER IN IA. 2270/2010 DTD. 19.2.2010. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.4037/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3.2.2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN RP. 1166/2008. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CAPEX/GTY-02/09-10 DTD. 24.4.2009 OF THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 22.10.2009. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 22.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 7.12.09 WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4037 of 2010-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the first opposite party in Ext.P3 proceedings of the Controlling Authority (District Labour Officer), Alappuzha under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner's case is that there were payments due towards gratuity to the former employees and finally by proceedings dated 27.10.2004 the District Labour Officer, Alappuzha directed the petitioner to pay gratuity to the claimants with interest at 10% from the date on which it fell due. Later, the matter was taken up before this Court by one of the former employees, in W.P.(C) No.35367/2007 on behalf of 113 employees and a direction was issued by this Court directing the petitioner to pay gratuity amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Even though W.A. No.1147/2008 was filed, that was also dismissed. Later, R.P.No.1166/2008 was filed, wherein this Court directed the District Labour Officer to consider the claim afresh, after hearing the parties. An amount of Rs.50 lakhs was directed to be deposited before the Controlling Authority and the said amount was wpc 4037/2010 2 deposited by the petitioner later, which is evidenced by Ext.P2. Finally, by Ext.P3 proceedings, the gratuity payable to each eligible applicant has been disbursed also. By Ext.P4, the petitioner was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.3,97,448/- + 10% interest from the date on which the gratuity fell due to each of the 97 applicants, found eligible. 2. Failing to get any positive action by the District Labour Officer to disburse the amount and return back the balance amount after disbursement, this writ petition has been filed. Since the petitioner has already deposited Rs.50 lakhs, it is up to the District Labour Officer/Controlling Authority to disburse the eligible amount. The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With regard to the balance amount, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is losing interest also on this amount. It is pointed out at the Bar that an appeal is pending against Ext.P3, filed by the persons to whom the benefit of gratuity has been denied. Even then after disbursal of the amount as directed above, if there is any balance amount, the same will be returned to the petitioner, to prevent loss of interest by the petitioner thereafter. Further action if any, will be taken wpc 4037/2010 3 after the disposal of the appeal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/