IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 825 of 2011(S) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.38619/2010 DTD. 11.1.2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAVINDRAN PILLAI.G., S/O. C.J. GOPALAPILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, "SURYA" EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA.P.O., MAVELIKKARA, (RETIRED AS F.O. FROM THE KSEB ON 1-6-2006 AN) BY ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ M.H.FATHIMA BEEVI (FATHERS NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) REPRESENTED BY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYAMENT OF GRATUITY OF DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM- 676 061. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss COC. NO.825/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.D 11.1.2011. A2:- COPY OF THE LAST REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- Contempt Case (C).No.825 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st August, 2011 JUDGMENT This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondent herein, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the District Labour Officer, Malappuram, has wilfully violated the directions contained in Annexure A1 interim order. By that interim order this Court directed the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act to disburse the principal amount of gratuity deposited by the Kerala State Electricity Board on the petitioner executing a personal bond. Such an order happened to be passed in view of the statement made by the petitioner himself that the Board has deposited the principal amount of gratuity with the Controlling Authority. It is now conceded at the Bar that such deposit was never made and that by judgment delivered on 24.6.2011 the writ petition itself was disposed of giving the Board three months time to deposit the principal amount. The petitioner cannot therefore have any grievance as regards the disbursement of the amount pursuant to Cont. Case (C).No.825 of 2011 -:2:- the interim order evidenced by Annexure A1. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move later, if occasion arises in future. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- Cont.Case(C).No.825 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 1st August, 2011