IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31832 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.KUMARAN,S/O.CHATHU,AGED 67 YEARS, THUNDIYIL HOUSE,VATTOLI(PO),(VIA.)KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,1972, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,KOZHIKODE. BY SC, KSEB SRI. K.S ANIL GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd December,2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was paid gratuity in accordance with the Kerala Service Rules which were adopted by the Kerala State Electricity Board for their employees. On the contention that the petitioner is entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, petitioner filed a Gratuity Case before the 2nd respondent Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, who, by Ext.P1 order, allowed the claim and directed the Electricity Board to pay additional gratuity to the petitioner. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the amount covered by Ext.P1 has not been paid to the petitioner. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board submits that the amount covered by Ext.P1 order has been deposited before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode on 21.3.2006. W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if it has been so deposited, it has not been disbursed to the petitioner. According to him, on enquiry, the respondents submitted that the amount deposited cannot be disbursed since an appeal filed by the Electricity Board against the judgment which has been relied on in Ext.P1 for allowing the claim of the petitioner is pending before the Supreme Court, in which, there is a stay also. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader. 5. It is true that the appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court holding that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board is pending before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has granted a stay of operation of the judgment. But a Division Bench of this Court has in Abdul Rahiman Vs. The District Collector, W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009 3 Malappuram [2009 (4) KHC 283] held that even when a decision of the Division Bench is stayed by the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judges of this Court are bound by the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench and in identical matters coming up before them, the learned Single Judges are bound to follow the ratio of the said decision notwithstanding the stay granted by the Supreme Court. However, a Division Bench of this Court has passed certain orders to safeguard the interest of the Board in the event of they ultimately succeeding in the appeal pending before the Supreme Court. 6. Following those decisions, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. Even after four months from today, the Board is not able to get the appeal pending before the Supreme Court disposed of, the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode shall disburse the amount in deposit with him to the petitioner, on the petitioner executing a bond with two serving employees of the Board as sureties for due repayment of the amount in the event of the Electricity W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009 4 Board succeeding in the appeal pending before the Supreme Court. If the petitioner is unable to find serving employees of the Board as sureties, the amount need be disbursed only after the appeal is finally disposed of by the Supreme Court. In that event, the petitioner would be further entitled to 10% interest on the amount in deposit. It would also be open to the petitioner to get the amount released after four months on furnishing security by way of a Bank Guarantee instead of a bond with two sureties as directed above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ma W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No. 31832 of 2009 6