IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 31108 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1 ---------------- 1. ANANDAN, SIMLA KIZHAKKATHIL, KTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SARASWATHY, SARASWATHI SADANAM, ESTATE P.O.,UMAYANALLOOR KOLLAM. 3. RAJAMMA, GEETHA MANDIRAM, ESTATE P.O., UMAYANALLOOR , KOLLAM. 4. OMANA, ANANDA VILASOM, PERAYAM, ESTATE P.O., UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. 5. POWLY, KALANGUVILA KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM. 6. SARASWATHY AMMA, MOOTHAMMADATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, MYLAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM. 7. THANKAMMA, SANTHOSH MANDIRAM, PERAYAM, ESTATE P.O., UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. 8. SAVITHRI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, THAZHUTHALA, KOTTIYAM P.O.,KOLLAM. 9. SARASAMMA, CHIRAKKARA PUTHENVEEDU, COLONY, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM. 10. NALINI, KUTHIKKATTUVILAVEEDU, THAZHUTHALA, KOTTIYAM. 11. INDIRA, MELATHILVEEDU, MEENADU, KIZHAKKUMKARA, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 12. SARASAMMA, KOCHUKUNUMPURATHU VEEDU, MEENADU, KIZHAKKUMKARA,CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 13. RAJAMMA, CHAMAVILA, ESTATE P.O., UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. 14. NANI, NELLIKKAVILA VADAKKATHIL, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM. 15. SUMATHI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, KARAMKODU P.O., CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. 16. GOMATHI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, KARAMKODU P.O., CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 17. SHERIFA BEEVI, THADAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 18. RAJAMMA, ASARIVILA, THAZHAMTHEKKU. 19. BABY, CHIRAKKARA PUTHENVEEDU, COLONY, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM. 20. AMBUJAKSHYA AMMA, NADAYIL PADINJATTATHIL, MYLAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM. 21. SUMATHI, THUMPARA MELETHIL PUTHENVEEDU, ERAM, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 22. RAJAMMA, THUMPARA MELATHILVEEDU, ERAM, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 23. VASANTHAKUMARY, MUNDAKKALTHODI, ERAM, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 24. AYSHA BEEVI, MAVILAZHIKOM, THAZHAM NORTH, CHATHANNOOR ,KOLLAM. 25. BHANUMATHI, KIZHAKKEATTATHU, MEENADU, KIZHAKKUMKARA, CHATHANOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 26. S.RAMAKRISHNAN, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 27. VILASINI, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O.,KOLLAM. 28. RUKHIYA UMMA, THADATHIL VEEDU, ESTATE P.O., UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. 29. RATNAMMA, KUMARAVILASOM, ESTATE P.O., UMAYANALLOOR , KOLLAM. 30. MEENAKSHI, SHEEBA BHAVAN, NORTH MYLAKKADU, KANNALALLOR P.O., KOLLAM. 31. DEVASANAN, CHALUVILA PADINNJATTATHIL, KUZHIYAM, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O., KOLLAM. 32. DEVAKI AMMA, MURALCE MANDIRAM, DECENT JN P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLLAM. ADV.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.31108 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are retired employees of the 1st respondent Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Their grievance in this writ petition is that gratuity due to them has not been paid by the 1st respondent, although the petitioners retired years ago. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the gratuity due to the petitioners with interest forthwith. 2. To issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice, including a direction for payment of cost of this proceedings to the petitioners.” 2. A statement has been filed by the Corporation, in which the only contention raised is that because of paucity of funds, they are not able to pay gratuity due to their retired employees. Although in O.P.No.6586/2002 a learned Single Judge of this Court had permitted the 1st respondent to pay gratuity in accordance with the priority of the date of retirement, that was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1079/2002. The counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that that matter has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and in those cases, the judgments of this Court have been stayed. Despite the contentions raised by the 1st respondent, in so far as the liability is 2 not disputed, I do not think that the petitioners should be denied their statutory right. In fact in Ext.P1 judgment in respect of similar employees I had directed payment of gratuity within a period of four months. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pay gratuity due to the petitioners within a period of four months from today along with interest. However, I note the submission made by the counsel for the 1st respondent that out of the 32 petitioners, gratuity due to nine of them has already been disbursed, which is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge