IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 24376 of 2007(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, SIVA SAKTHI, CHERUMOODU, VELLIMON, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM, (WORKING AS WATCHER, PERINADU CASHEW WORKERS INDUSTRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY). BY ADV. MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, 'CAPEX', KOLLAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, PERINADU CASHEW WORKERS INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.(Q) 349, CHEMMAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM. *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED: 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/03/08 IN W.P.(C). R1, R2 & ADDL.R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.S. MUHAMED HASHIM, R3 BY ADVS. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR. MR. PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHEER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24376/2007-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/12/2005 IN G.C.NO.206 OF 2000 BEFORE THE GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER) KOLLAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REGISTERED NOTICE DTD. 31/05/2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.3. WITH COPY TO OTHER RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 11/09/08. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DHANAKARYAM DTD. 11/08/08 ALONG WITH THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE R1: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.992/08/ID DTD. 02/09/2008. ANNEXURE R2: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.993/08/ID DTD. 02/09/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 24376 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the entire amount of gratuity has been paid by the third respondent. According to the counsel for the third respondent, the liability of CAPEX to pay gratuity of the employees like the petitioner would extend only over the period during which the employee has actually worked under it. However, as a special case, the CAPEX has paid the entire amount due to the petitioner. Therefore, he prays that this may not be quoted as a precedent when such benefits are claimed by the other similarly placed employees. 2. In view of the fact that the entire amount of gratuity has been paid, no further orders are called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. However, it is clarified that this case need not be treated as a precedent, in the case of other similarly placed employees. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk