IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 26744 of 1999(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SR. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU, SC.RAILWAYS. ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. K.J. THRESSIA, KAROTTUPLACKUZHIYIL, KOTHANELLOORE.P.O., KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM. 2. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI-16. 3. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), COCHIN, KALATHILPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI-16. BY SRI.E.S.MUHAMMED KABIR, ADD.CGSC. ADV. SRI.PRINCE CHAKRAMPILLY, ADDL.CGSC, SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, SRI.P.C.SEBASTIAN, SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP, SRI.D.KISHORE, ADDL.CGSC. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008,ALONG WITH O.P NO. 29346/2002,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 26744/1999-H: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE GRATUITY APPLICATION NO. 61/96 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES, FILED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 28/11/96 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN G.A. 61/96. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/12/96 IN G.A. 61/96 PASSED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE GRATUITY APPEAL NO. 29/97 DTD. 26/02/97 FILED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/09/99 IN GRATUITY APPEAL NO. 29-97 PASSED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.26744/1999 & 29346/2002 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T These two original petitions relate to payment of gratuity to employees of the Southern Railways. In O.P.No.4256/2000 I had passed the following judgment: 'The matter arises under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioner is the Railways. They are challenging orders of the authorities under the payment of Gratuity Act, by which petitioner was directed to pay gratuity to the first respondent for the period during which the first respondent worked as casual labourer. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that if this amount is paid there would be duplication in payment of the benefit while computing the period of gratuity. There was a series of writ petitions on the same point in respect of similarly placed casual labourers. One such writ petition is O.P.280/2000. The judgment in that writ petition reads as follows:- “The challenge is on the orders passed under the Payment of Gratuity Act. One of the main contentions taken by the petitioner is that there is duplication in payment of the benefits while computing the period of gratuity. This writ petition is disposed of making it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to withhold the required amount as per the impugned orders so as to avoid duplication.” 3. In view of the said decision on identical facts, this writ petition is also to be disposed of in terms of that judgment. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the worker retired in the year 1991 and the Railways may be directed to compute the benefit due to the petitioner within a time frame. He particularly points out that the benefit due to the first respondent in O.P.280/2000 has not yet been disbursed even though the judgment was on 13.10.2006. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of making it clear that it would be open to the petitioner to withhold the required amounts as per the impugned orders so as to avoid duplication. However, the Railways shall take a decision on the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and intimate the first respondent the benefits due to her and also pay such benefits or recover the excess gratuity paid, in terms of the Division Bench decision in O.P.25021/2002, which is the basis of all other decisions on the subject.' It submitted before me that these original petitions are in respect of identically situated employees. Accordingly, these original petitions are disposed of in terms of the above judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge