Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., J
INDIRA M.A., THANKACHI, SOBHANA G., SHYAMALA DEVI, B.S. LATHAKUMARI, RAJANI P., PREMALEENA M.K., USHAS V., SINDHU C., MINI RAMESH, KOCHUTHRESYA, SUGATHAMMA B, ANILA S., GIRIJA, VALSALA S., AISHABAI G. – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M) CORPORATION LTD. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10862 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SMT.UMMUL FIDA, SMT.LAKSHMI SREEDHAR, SMT.POOJA CHANDRAN, SMT.GAYATHRI G., SMT. T. J. JUBIL
For the Respondents: SRI. NAVEEN T (SC-BEVCO)
Petitioners entitled to gratuity pending final resolution of preceding case by Supreme Court.
Headnote:The petitioners assert entitlement to gratuity based on a prior judgment in Manoharan D v. Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation, which the respondent does not dispute. The respondent intends to challenge the prior judgment before the Supreme Court, and the court directs consideration of the petitioners' claims after the finality of the earlier judgment. Results indicate the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. asserted entitlement to gratuity. (Para 1) |
| 2. non-dispute of petitioners' entitlement. (Para 2) |
| 3. review petitions and challenges. (Para 3) |
| 4. consent disposal and consideration directive. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2026 The petitioners in this writ petition assert that they are similarly placed and are entitled to payment of gratuity based on the findings in Ext.P2 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Manoharan D v. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation [2025 KHC 2313] .
2. The learned Standing Counsel representing the Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BEVCO’) does not dispute that the petitioners herein are similarly situated as the appellants in Manoharan (supra). He submits that review petitions numbered RP Nos.51 of 2026 and 65 of 2026 were filed to seek review of the judgment in Manoharan (supra). It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for BEVCO that, R.P. Nos.51 of 2026 and 65 of 2026 were not entertained by this Court and that the BEVCO intends to challenge the judgment in Manoharan (supra)
before the Supreme Court, as the finding that employees similarly situated are entitled to the payment of gratuity will cause huge financial strain on the BEVCO.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the claim of the petitioners need be considered only after any challenge to the judgment in Manoharan (supra) is concluded.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this case and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for BEVCO, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of on consent, directing that the competent authority of BEVCO shall consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the law, after the judgment in Manoharan (supra) attains finality. Since it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for BEVCO that, BEVCO intends to challenge the judgment in Manoharan (supra) before the Supreme Court, it is made clear that the consideration of the claims raised by the petitioners will also be subject to the result of any Special Leave Petition that BEVCO may seek to file against the judgment in Manoharan (supra). In light of the above, no time limit is being fixed for the consideration of the claims of the petitioners for the payment of gratuity. The right of the petitioners to approach this Court if there is undue delay in considering their claims will stand expressly reserved.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
