IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31309 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.S.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 67 YEARS, KALAVATH HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O. 2. C.M.RADHA, AGED 67 YEARS, KUTTICHACKALA HOUSE, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024. BY ADV. MR.K.K.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM). 3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER), DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV.MR. K.S. ANIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 31309 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are retired employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. At the time of retirement, they were paid gratuity in accordance with the KSR which have been adopted by the KSEB. Petitioners would contend that they are entitled to gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore they filed a gratuity application before the controlling authority for difference in gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, who by Ext.P1 order allowed the claim and directed the Board to pay additional gratuity to the petitioners. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that that additional gratuity is not being paid to them. 2. The learned standing counsel for the KSEB submits that the gratuity amount has already been deposited with the controlling authority. But according to him the amount cannot be disbursed now since the Division Bench decision of this court, based on which the order has been passed, has been stayed by the Supreme Court in an appeal filed by KSEB. W.P(C) No. 31309 of 2009 -2- 3. I have heard both sides. 4. This court has in the decision of Abdul Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram and another [2009 (4) KHC 283 (DB)] held that even when a division bench decision of this court is stayed by the Supreme Court, in other cases before the single Judges of this court on the same point, the single Judges are bound by the law declared by the Division Bench in the decision which has been stayed by the Supreme Court. Therefore simply because in another case there is a stay by the Supreme Court, the gratuity amount as per orders of the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in accordance with the Division Bench decision. 5. However, a Division Bench of this court has issued certain directions with regard to such payments to safeguard the interests of the Board, in the event of the Supreme Court ultimately deciding the appeal in favour of the Board. Following those directions, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 6. If the appeal pending before the Supreme Court is not disposed of within four months, the amounts due to the W.P(C) No. 31309 of 2009 -3- petitioners as per Ext.P1 order shall be disbursed to them on their furnishing a bond with two serving employees of the board as sureties, as security for refund of the amounts received by them, if ultimately the Supreme Court decides in favour of the Board in the appeal pending before the Supreme Court. If the petitioners are unable to find two serving employees of the Board as sureties, the amount need be disbursed only after the Supreme Court decides the matter, in which event if ultimately the Supreme Court decides against the Board, the Board will further be liable to pay 10% interest on the amounts due as per Ext.P1. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs