IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1088 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SC,KSEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUMARAN MOOSAD.K.P., (RTD) SUPDT., K.S.E.B., KAVITHA, CALICUT ROAD, MANJERI. 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER), MALAPPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009,ALONG WITH W.P.(C).Nos.1089/08 &1090/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 1088/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE OBJECTION BEFORE R2. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.10.05 BY R2. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.8.06 BY R3. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No. 674/02. P5. COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN O.P.NO.674/02. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos.1088, 1089 & 1090 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T These writ petitions are filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board challenging proceedings of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act directing payment of additional gratuity calculated under the Payment of Gratuity Act to the party respondents in these cases, who are retired employees of the Board, on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable to the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. This Court has in the decision in W.A.No.1062/2003 and connected cases held that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submits that that judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court. But a Division Bench of this Court has in Abdul Rehiman v. District Collector, Malappuram [2009 (4) KHC 283] held that even when a Division Bench decision is stayed by the Supreme Court, the ratio of that decision does not cease to be applicable to other cases on the same point coming up before learned Single Judges of this Court. Therefore, I am bound to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of the said Division Bench decision. Accordingly, relying on those decisions, these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2