IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32160 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.M. NARAYANAN, KANDANKANDY HOUSE, MUCHUKUNNU P.O. KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 2. M.M.DAMODARAN, AGED 65, 'TINU NIVAS' P.O.KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 3. C.H.BHAKTAVALSALAN, AGED 62, 'PRASANTHI', NEAR RLY. STATION, VATAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE. 4. K.P.NANU, AGED 62, VALIYAKANDATHIL HOUSE, NARIPPATA P.O., KALLACHI, KOZHIKODE. 5. A.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 61, KOTTAYIL ADUMBAT, MUTTUNGAL P.O., KOZHIKODE, 6. T.H.KARTHYAYANI, AGED 66, THAZHATH KOROTH, PUTHUPPANAM P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 7. K.KUNHABDULLA, AGED 67, 'SHARIMINAS' NADAKKUTHAZHE P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 8. P.P.BALAN, AGED 61, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, EDACHERY P.O., KOZHIKODE 9. T.CHANDRAN, AGED 63, SOPANAM, KAKKODI P.O., KOZHIKODE 10. C.BALAN, AGED 62, AMBARAM HOUSE, KAKKODI P.O., KOZHIKODE. 11. P.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 64, KUNNATH HOUSE, V.O.ROAD, VATAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE WP(C).No. 32160 of 2009(L) -2- 12. P.P. GOPINATHAN, AGED 65, GOKULA, CHEMANCHERYP.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 13. A.V.RAMAN, AGED 62, AMMITTAM VEETIL, P.O., KARAYAD, MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE. 14. M.SIVADASAN, AGED 64, PUTHIYOTTIL HOSUE, VAIKKILASSEI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 15. M.MOIDU, AGED 62, KOORANKANDI THAZHEKUNI, P.O.KARTHIKAPPALLI, VILLIAPALLI, VATAKARA, 16. V.K. NARAYANAN, AGED 70, 'VALIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE', MELADI P.O., PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE. 17. C.M.SANKARA PANICKER, AGED 66, 'SREYASS', PERUVAYAL P.O., EDAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE. 18. P.SIVADASAN, AGED 60, POOVADAN KUZHIYIL, EDAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE. 19. K.P.DEVADASAN, AGED 61, PAYOLI HOUSE, EDAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE. 20. A.VASU, AGED 64, KANDAMPARAMBATH, THIKKOD P.O., KOZHIKODE. 21. K. SREEDHARAN, AGED 66, KALLATTU HOUSE, NADAKKUTHAZHE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 22. P.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 62, PARAMBATH HOUSE, PUTHUPPANAM P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 23. V.R.RAMESH, AGED 62, ' SREERAGAM', NARAYANA NAGARAM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.S.K.SAJU MR.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN WP(C).No. 32160 of 2009(L) -3- RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUTIY ACT, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. MR. K.S.ANIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 32160 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. They were paid gratuity in accordance with rules applicable to employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. But the petitioners approached the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking additional gratuity as computed under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The same was allowed by the controlling authority and the Board was directed to pay additional gratuity to the petitioners. Appeals filed by the Board against the orders of the controlling authority were also rejected. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that despite the orders of the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the amounts deposited by the Board before the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act are not being disbursed to the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Board is that although a Division Bench of this Court as held that W.P(C) No. 32160 of 2009 -2- employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board are entitled to gratuity as computed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Board has taken that matter in appeal before the Supreme Court and there is a stay granted by the Supreme Court in that case. According to the standing counsel for the Board, in view of that stay, unless and until the Supreme Court either decides the matter finally against the Board or vacates the interim order in that case, the amounts deposited cannot be disbursed. 4. I do not agree with the standing counsel for the Electricity Board. In fact a Division Bench of this court has in Abdul Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another [2009 (4) KHC 283 (DB)] held that even when a decision of a Division Bench of this court is stayed by the apex court, the learned single Judges of this court are bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench as it continues to be a binding precedent for them. As per that judgment, the interim order of stay granted by the Supreme Court only relieves the concerned parties in the judgment under appeal from obeying the directions in the judgment under appeal. Therefore, simply because the order of the Division Bench is stayed by the Supreme Court, in one case that that cannot operate as a stay in other cases in respect of similar employees W.P(C) No. 32160 of 2009 -3- unless these subsequent orders are also stayed by the Supreme Court. At the same time, I think that there should be some protection for the Electricity Board, if ultimately the Supreme Court decides the question posed before them in favour of the Board. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: If the decision of the Supreme Court does not come within 4 months from today, on expiry of four months, the respondents 1 and 2 shall disburse the amounts deposited with them to the petitioners on the petitioners executing a bond with two serving employees of the Board as sureties for repayment of the amounts so disbursed, if ultimately the Supreme Court decides the matter in favour of the Board in the appeal pending. If the petitioners are not able to find two serving employees as sureties the amounts need be disbursed only after the appeal before the Supreme Court is over, in which case the amount due would be paid with 10% interest. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs