P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. Petitioners are the same in both the appeals, whereas the Crl.M.C. has been filed by a different person. The common link is applicability of the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (referred to as Shops Act). The contention raised is that the 'hospital' of the petitioners, stated as a charitable establishment, does not come within the purview of the Shops Act.

2. Payment of Gratuity ordered by the controlling authority in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972(referred to as Gratuity Act) as confirmed by the appellate authority and affirmed by the learned single Judge (repelling the contentions raised by referring to Section 1(3)(b) of the Gratuity act) is under challenge in W.A.No.1737 of 2013. The challenge in WA No.1548 of 2016 is against the order passed by the District Labour Officer (declaring that the appellants' hospital as coming within the purview of the Shops Act) which came to be affirmed, when interference was declined in the writ petition by the very same learned Single Judge, who held that the issue was covered by the judgment in the former case (reported in 2013 (4)KLT 402 - Lourdes Hospital v. Dr