JUDGMENT

The orders impugned in these writ petitions – which have been heard together taking note of the analogous factual circumstances presented therein – have been issued by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act , ordering certain benefits to the 1st respondent in all these matters, who are employees of the petitioner –

Society.

2. Sri.M.Sasindran – learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner – Society in all these cases, submits that the impugned order of the Controlling Authority is in error because it had not even considered the Bye- Laws/Regulations of his client, which specify that the benefits of gratuity can be paid to their employees only as per the Payment of Gratuity Act . He submitted that since the Controlling Authority omitted to consider this vital aspect, the orders impugned are deserving to be set aside.

3. Sri.P.N.Mohanan – learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in all these cases, submitted that the Controlling Authority has only acted as per the holdings of this Court inKerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Viswanathamallan [ 2022(4)KLT 495 ], which as declared the law indubitably that when there are two choices available, one under