IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 439 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33283/2008 Dated 26/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ FIRST RESPONDENT; ------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS/ WRIT PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------- 1. N.K.USHA, W/O.K.MUKUNDAN, 'KAUSTHUBHOM', RETREAT ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR 680 020. 2. P.S.RADHA, W/O.LATE S.VASUDEVAN, OORAKATH HOUSE, PUDURKKARA, POST AYYANTHOLE. 3. A.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE A.DHARMADEVAN, 'SRUTHY', VASANTH NAGAR, POST PATTURAIKKAL, THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR-22. 4. N.A.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.LATE N.APPUKUTTAN NAMBATH HOUSE, POST VADAKKEKKAD, PIN 679 562. 5. K.M.SANTHAN, W/O.N.A.PURUSHOTHAMAN, NAMBATH HOUSE, POST VADAKKEKKAD, PIN 679 562. 6. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 & DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI FOR R1 TO 5 SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R1 TO R5 GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU FOR R6 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------- W.A.No.439 OF 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The dispute raised in this Writ Appeal is concerning the eligibility of the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board to receive gratuity as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. According to the appellant, they are entitled to get gratuity only as provided under the Kerala Service Rules. But, this Court in K.S.E.B v. Mohankumar [2008 (3) KLT 73] and other cases has taken a view that the employees are entitled to get gratuity at the rate provided under the aforementioned Act. We are bound by that decision. 2. But, learned senior counsel, Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, appearing for the KSEB submitted that the above reported decision is pending in appeal before the Supreme Court. There is an interim order of stay also granted in the said appeal. The interim order is not a binding precedent, as far as other cases are concerned. The parties to the appeal alone will be bound by the interim order. But, since the same legal question is pending before the Apex Court, we feel that certain directions to W.A.No.439/2009 2 safeguard the interest of the KSEB should also be issued. 3. We are in respectful agreement with the law laid down by this Court in K.S.E.B. v. Mohanakumar (supra) and therefore the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. But, it is ordered that if the appeal filed by the K.S.E.B is allowed by the Apex Court, the respondent herein (writ petitioner) will also be bound by the law declared by the Apex Court and he will be entitled to receive gratuity in accordance with that decision only. It is also ordered that if the appeal is not disposed of by the Apex Court, within four months from today, the additional gratuity amount found due to the respondent/writ petitioner shall be released to him immediately thereafter on his executing a bond along with two other serving employees of the K.S.E.B to refund the amount, if decision of the Apex Court is in favour of the K.S.E.B. Subject to the above above directions, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps