IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 129 of 2009(T) --------------------- {IN WPC.30196/2008 OF THIS COURT} .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. B.SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.ABOOBACKER, BIYARAM HOUSE, PO.ICHILANGODE, KASARAGODE. 2. M.P.PADMANABHAN, RETD. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CHALTHANYA.PO., UPPALA, KASARAGODE 3. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY OF PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER KASARAGODE. 4. JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.129 of 2009 in W.P.(C).No.30196 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This is a petition for review of the judgment dated 22.10.2008. 2. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment, I recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board that gratuity due to the writ petitioners, who retired from the Electricity Board, shall be paid in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed on their applications on 5.10.2005 and 24.3.2006. 3. Review is now sought on the ground that the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, holding that gratuity is payable to the employees of the Electricity Board as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, has been stayed by the Apex Court. This may be so. But inter-partes Exts.P1 and P2 orders have become final. Those are orders R.P.No.129 of 2009 in W.P.(C).No.30196 of 2008 :: 2 :: passed by a competent authority and unless those orders are set aside by any other competent authority, they will continue to bind the parties thereto. The direction issued in the judgment sought to be reviewed only contemplates an enforcement of the orders passed by the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which order, as on the date of the judgment and even as on today, remains final. In these circumstances, I do not find any grounds to review the judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge