CWP No.9477 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9477 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.03.2011 **** Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. Dharam Singh Lineman & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. HS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.9477, 9636 & 9687 of 2010 involving common issues, namely, (i) as to whether the Board employees are entitled to claim ‘Gratuity’ under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ? and (ii) whether the exemption granted to the Board vide notification dated 08.01.2004 (Annexure P1) is valid in law? (2). Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the above issues stand settled by a Division Bench decision of this Court in CWP No.5126 of 2004 (Balwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and another) decided on 27.02.2008. CWP No.9477 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). This Court while allowing a batch of writ petitions including CWP No.18329 of 2008 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board v. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & Others which were decided on the basis of Balwant Singh’s case (supra) on 10.08.2010, issued the following directions :- “The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.06.2006 & 28.06.2007 (Annexure P4 & P6, respectively) are hereby quashed subject to the binding nature of the decision in the SLP said to have been preferred by the employees before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid Division Bench decision in Balwant Singh’s case (supra). It needs to be mentioned here that learned counsel for the petitioner-Board undertakes that in case the Division Bench judgement in Balwant Singh’s and other connected cases is reversed/modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the employees, namely, the private respondents in these cases shall also be entitled to the same benefit as may be admissible in terms of the final orders by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. CWP No.9477 of 2010.doc - 3 – It is accordingly directed that notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition has been allowed or the orders by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the 1972 Act, have been set aside, if the other employees whose matters are still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court succeed wholly or in part, the benefit flowing from the Apex Court orders shall be made available to the respondent-employee(s) also within a period of four months from the date of passing of such orders by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” (4). The writ petition(s) is/are accordingly allowed in terms of the directions, reproduced above. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 23.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge