Retired employees are entitled to gratuity despite delayed regularization, and interest on delayed payment must be granted.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are stated to be the retired employees of the 1^st respondent Board working as Spinning Instructors and Loom Inspectors respectively. There was a dispute as regards the entitlement of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to employees like the petitioners, who were regularised in service only on a later date, on account of which the Board took the stand that their earlier service need not be reckoned for considering the eligibility under the Act. This dispute was settled by virtue of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) N.2115 of 2008 dated 04.03.2008 holding that if the employee was working continuously and putting in continuos service, merely for the reason that the regularisation has been taken place only later, the benefits are not to be denied. On the basis of the afore declaration, the petitioners also sought the benefit of gratuity. When gratuity was not disbursed as applied for, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17705 of 2013 and by Ext.P3 judgment dated 19.01.2015, this Court had recorded the submission made by the 1^st respondent Board that they are ready to disburse the gratuity within a time frame. On that basis, two months time was granted for disbursement of gratuity to the petitioners. However, even thereafter only a portion of the gratuity was disbursed to the petitioners, on account of which, the petitioners were compelled to file W.P.(C) No.22960 of 2017 before this Court. By Ext.P4 judgment dated 29.10.2018, after noticing the amounts lying in balance to be given to the respective petitioners in paragraph 1, this Court found that the Board has to disburse the differential amount of gratuity to the petitioners as indicated in the table referred to in paragraph 1 of the judgment. As regards the claim for interest made by the petitioners, this Court found that the said issue is being left open for consideration in an appropriate proceedings. On that basis, the petitioners, after receipt of the entire gratuity, filed Ext.P5 series applications seeking for interest on the delay payment. They also filed separate applications seeking condonation of delay in filling the applications for interest under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. By the impugned proceedings at Ext.P7 series, the Deputy Labour Commissioner sought to reject the applications for condonation of delay finding that the delay is to the extent of 4590 days and the reasons pointed out in the application seeking condonation of delay cannot be accepted. It is in afore circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for the third occasion.

2. I have heard Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Unnikrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Board.

3. This Court notices that the impugned order at Ext.P7 series have been issued refusing to condone the delay of 4590 days. In this connection, two aspects are required to be noticed. Firstly, the petitioners sought for the benefits under the statute by filing an application and this was being considered by the authority under the statue, which at the first instance got rejected. It is only pursuant to the judgment of this Court at Ext.P3 that the respondents were directed to disburse the gratuity to the petitioners. Even thereafter, the gratuity was not disbursed in full to the petitioners and that is why they had to approach this Court in the second round of litigation, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing that the differential amount of gratuity also requires to be disbursed. Therefore, this Court notices that it is only pursuant to the directions of this Court in Exts.P3