JUDGMENT :- (1) All these writ petitions are taken up together as common question involved, for the purpose of appreciation, W. P. Nos. 14551/2008 and 16079-109/2008 are taken up. (2) Petitioners have called in question an identical endorsement dated 13th August 2008 produced at Annexure-Q1 and 10th November 2008 produced at Annexure-Q2 and another set of endorsements, which are produced and marked as Annexures-Q3 to Q30. Similarly in other cases also, Corporation has issued such endorsements. (3) Brief facts leading to these cases are : petitioners are the retired employees of the respondents - Corporation, they have retired during the period from 28-11-1995 to 31-3-1998, and received the gratuity amount. In view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2007-I-LLJ page 231 in the matter of Management of KSRTC Th. Chief law Officer v. R. Krishna Reddy (in short referred to as 'krishna Reddy's case'), they made a claim for payment of balance of gratuity amount, inter alia alleging that, in terms of the Government order dated 28-11-1995, Dearness allowance is added to the basic pay for the purpose of determining the gratuity. The said government Order is adopted by the corporation w. e. f. 1st April 1998. In view of the settlement between the Corporation and the union, the Government Order is also applicable to the employees, who have retired between 28-11-1995 and 31-3-1998 and are entitled for calculation of gratuity amount by adding the Dearness Allowance to the basic pay, and the gratuity determined to these employees is without adding the Dearness Allowance to the basic pay. It is further submitted, that some of the petitioners approached this Court in W. P. No. 41135/2003 and the learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition by his order dated 1st March 2007 inter alia directing the Corporation to examine the case of the petitioners therein on facts to ensure that they would be entitled to the benefit of the Government Order and the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Corporation shall consider the case of the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said order. (4) Corporation aggrieved by the direction filed W. A. No. 901/2007 inter alia contending that, the learned single Judge has issued a positive direction to the Corporation in the matter of payment of gratuity. (4) Corporation aggrieved by the direction filed W. A. No. 901/2007 inter alia contending that, the learned single Judge has issued a positive direction to the Corporation in the matter of payment of gratuity. The Division bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeal by order dated 17th December 2007 by observing that, the order passed by the learned single Judge has to be understood and be given effect to strictly in terms of the undertaking in which the appellant -Corporation has given before the learned single Judge specifically as recorded at para 3 of the order of the learned single Judge and accordingly directed the Corporation to consider the respective representations, which would be filed by the workmen within two weeks with reference to their entitlement based on the judgment of the supreme Court and the order of the Government. It also observed that, the management shall consider the representations in terms of the undertaking given by it before the learned single Judge as clarified and also observed that, all contentions of both the parties are left open. (5) Even after the direction of the Division bench, when the representations of the petitioners were not considered, again some of the petitioners filed W. P. No. 3802/2008 and other connected matters and this Court by its order dated 3rd April 2008 disposed of the writ petitions by referring to the order of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench earlier passed and directed the Corporation to examine individual cases in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court (Krishna Reddy's case) and the Government order and if the corporation finds that they are entitled in terms of the decision of the Apex Court as well as the Government Order, their claim be settled on merit. That is how the Corporation has issued an impugned endorsement dated 13-8-2008 produced at Annexure-Q series wherein the Corporation has rejected the claim of the petitioners, observing that, there is no merger of Dearness Allowance and claim of difference of gratuity is not sustainable. It also alleged that, the petitioners have suddenly woke up to claim additional gratuity on the basis of Krishna Reddy's case. It is in the light of the issue of these endorsements, these petitioners are before this Court. It also alleged that, the petitioners have suddenly woke up to claim additional gratuity on the basis of Krishna Reddy's case. It is in the light of the issue of these endorsements, these petitioners are before this Court. (6) Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, a settlement was entered into by the corporation and the Union on 17th July 1989 and the terms of Clause-5 of the settlement reads as under: "5. Dearness Allowance: the rates of Dearness Allowance shall be on par with the rates sanctioned by the State government to its employees from time to time and from the same dates. The enhanced dearness Allowance shall be paid in cash. If during the currency of this settlement, the Government of Karnataka were to merge any portion of the Dearness Allowance so merged will also be reckoned at appropriate levels by the corporation for determining the dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, city compensatory allowance and Gratuity payable to the employees of the corporation, but shall not be reckoned for other purposes. " (7) If the State Government merges any portion of Dearness Allowance will also be reckoned to the employees of the Corporation for the purpose of computing the gratuity. Referring to the said settlement, he further submitted that, State Government by its order dated 28th November 1995 produced at Annexure-C has merged Dearness Allowance with basic pay for the purpose of computing the gratuity and it is in terms of the said Government Order, r. Krishna Reddy, one of the corporation employees filed a writ petition before this court in W. P. No. 31735/1998 and the learned single Judge by his order dated 13th October 2003 disposed of the said writ petition, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-Dinteralia observing that, there is no difference between the merger or addition of Dearness Allowance to the basic pay. He referred to para-14 and submitted that, learned single Judge considering that, there is no difference as regard to the merger of the additional deamess allowance. observed that, the ultimate result is one and the same and if such hypertechnical interpretation of these phrases are accepted, it would result in great injustice to one of the parties to the contract and allowed the writ petition directing the Corporation to pay the difference of gratuity payable to petitioner therein (R. Krishna Reddy). observed that, the ultimate result is one and the same and if such hypertechnical interpretation of these phrases are accepted, it would result in great injustice to one of the parties to the contract and allowed the writ petition directing the Corporation to pay the difference of gratuity payable to petitioner therein (R. Krishna Reddy). (8) He further submitted that, the Corporation filed a W. A. No. 7954/2003,' however, division Bench concurred with the finding of the learned single Judge and rejected the writ appeal. Corporation being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench took the matter further to the Apex Court and Apex Court granted the leave and appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 4637/2006. The Apex court by its judgment dated 1-11-2006 held that, in view of the notification of the State government dated 28th November 1995 and in terms of the settlement between the corporation and the Union of the workers, government order is applicable to the employees of the Corporation. (9) He further submitted that, under Regulation 4 (2)of the Regulations, gratuity is computed by taking 30 days' wage per completed year of service. He also relied on the provisions of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity act (in short referred to as 'the Act'), which provides for computation of gratuity either in terms of the provisions of the Act or settlement or Regulations. He submitted that, in case of employees of the Corporation, they are governed by the settlement. He relied on krishna Reddy's case and submitted that, apex Court on the basis of the settlement and the Government Order, has held that, the component required to be taken into account for computing the gratuity is the basic pay and the dearness allowance, which will become wage. He further submitted that, the decision in Krishna Reddy's case is applicable to all the employees of the Corporation. He also submitted that, it is not necessary for every employee to approach the Court, once the issue is decided, it is binding on the Corporation, and further submitted that, the Corporation cannot deny the benefit of decision of apex Court to the other employees who are similarly placed. (10) He further submitted that, it is right of every employee to receive the lawful gratuity, and Corporation cannot deny it. (10) He further submitted that, it is right of every employee to receive the lawful gratuity, and Corporation cannot deny it. (11) In this regard, he also referred to some of the provisions of the Act, to point out that, the payment of gratuity will not be paid only on demand, but it has the duty of the employer to pay the same. He referred to Section 9 of the Act and submitted that, if the employer makes default in complying with any of the provisions of the Act or Rules or order made therein, would be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 months but it may extend to one year or with fine, which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees, but which may extend to twenty five thousand or both. Referring to the penal consequence, he submitted that, when a law is declared by the Apex Court, the Corporation on its own should have discharged its obligations by paying the difference of gratuity to such of the employees, who have been denied. He also submitted that, the difference of gratuity had become payable only in respect of employees, who have retired between 28-11-1995 and 31-3-1998, the Corporation is computing the gratuity by adding Dear-ness Allowance to the employees, who have retired after 1-4-1998, but same is denied to the employees who retired between 28-11-1995 and 31-3-1998, this act of the Corporation amounts to discriminating the similarly placed employees. (12) Learned senior counsel further submitted that, uner Section 4 of the Act, gratuity become payable if the employee has put in continuous service of 5 years and he has been terminated or retired or resigned or death or disablement due to accident or disease. However, completion of five years is not necessary in case of death or disablement. In this regard, he submitted that, it is the primary duty of every employer that in case the employee has completed 5 years of continuous service and if he attains superannuation or becomes eligible in terms of Section 4, employer to disburse the gratuity as applicable to them. He also submitted that, sub-section (5) of Section 4 does not prohibit the employee to receive better terms of gratuity under award or agreement or contract from the employer. He also submitted that, sub-section (5) of Section 4 does not prohibit the employee to receive better terms of gratuity under award or agreement or contract from the employer. He also submitted that, when the Apex Court declared the law, nothing was left to the Corporation to deny the benefit accrued to the employees, who also fall on the line with Krishna reddy. All that the Corporation is required to see is whether, the petitioners similarly placed on par with Krishna Reddy. (13) He further submitted that, gratuity is an amount contributed by the workmen and becomes payable in terms of Section 4 of the act, if that is not paid, it becomes recoverable in terms of Section 8 of the Act and if the same is not paid, the employer would invite the penal consequence in terms of Section 9 of the Act. Referring to the scheme of the Act, he further submitted that, it is not necessary for every employee to come before Court and make an application to seek a declaration that he became entitled for gratuity. Once law is declared, it is binding to all. In this regard, he relied on a decision reported in AIR 1988 sc 686 : (1987) 4 SCC 431 in the matter of k. I. Shephard and others v. Union of India and others. Referring to para-19 of the said judgment and submitted that, Apex Court in respect of some of the excluded employees, who had not come to Court, has granted the relief to them also by observing that, there is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. He further relied on another decision of the Apex Court reported in ILR 2008 kar 4651: (2008 AIR SCW 5421) (Supreme court) in the matter of Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others and submitted that, once the judgment has attained finality, it could not be termed as wrong and its benefit ought to have been extended to others, who are similarly situated. In this regard, he relied on para-20 of the judgment. In this regard, he relied on para-20 of the judgment. He further referred to judgment reported in 2003 (1) SLR 251 in the matter of State of Karnataka and others v. N. Parameshwarappa and others and submitted that, Apex Court at para 8 has held that, there is no reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the Court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of pay scale, everyone of that class of teachers, who approached, would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding whether they have not approached the Court. (14) He also relied on another judgment reported in 2003 AIR SCW 885 : ( AIR 2003 sc 1526 ) in the matter of H. Gangahanume gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited and submitted that, payment of gratuity with or without interest as the case may be does not lie in the domain of discretion but it is a statutory compulsion. Specific benefits expressly given in a social beneficial legislation cannot be ordinarily denied. Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. He submitted that, primary duty is on the employer to disburse the gratuity immediately after retirement and in the event there is a delay, the employer has to pay interest by way of penalty. He further submitted that, Act being a social legislation, it has to be viewed as a beneficial legislation in favour of the workmen rather considering the technicalities in favour of the employer. He also relied on another decision of the Apex court reported in AIR 1988 SC 1353 in the matter of Anil Kumar Neotia and others v. Union of India and others and submitted that, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on the Corporation and the question is no longer open to act to the contrary. He referred to paras 17 and 18 of the said judgment and submitted that, irrespective of whether they are parties to judgment or not, the efficacy and integrity and the mandate of Article 141 requires that the judgment be made applicable to all such persons, who are beneficial of the said judgment, as it is law by itself, treating it is applicable only to the petitioners would make it illusory. (15) He referred to Article 141 of the Constitution of India and submitted that, if an issue falls for consideration before the Apex court and the Apex Court decides an issue, such decision on the said issue would be binding and is a precedent and it has binding effect on all the Courts and the parties and it cannot be said that, the decision of the Apex court being the law of the land on the issue of payment of gratuity that is decided is binding on all such persons, who are covered under the said decision. He further submitted that, the issue involved in Krishna Reddy's case was, as to whether Dearness Allowance has to be merged or added to the basic pay or not, and the Apex Court has held that, in terms of the Government Order and the settlement, dearness Allowance is required to be merged or added to the basic pay for the purpose of determining the gratuity. If that is the law declared by the Apex Court in the matter of payment of gratuity in relation to the employees of the Corporation, it cannot be said that, the said decision is only binding on the parties to the dispute. He further submitted that, the benefit of Krishna Reddy's case is required to be extended to all the Corporation employees irrespective of fact as to whether they are before the Court or not. (16) Sri. P. S. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for other workmen also submitted that, the decision in Krishna Reddy's case is binding on the Corporation and all the employees similarly placed are entitled for the benefit of the decision. He also adopted the argument of learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Subba Rao. (17) Sri. S. N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation raised two principal contentions - (i) the judgment in krishna Reddy's case does not decide the issue (ii) alternatively, if the Krishna Reddy's case is applicable, the petitioners are not entitled on the ground of delay and laches. (18) In support of his first contention, he referred to the settlement entered into between the Corporation and the union on 17th July 1989 and submitted that, gratuity has become payable under the settlement and riot under the provisions of the Act. (18) In support of his first contention, he referred to the settlement entered into between the Corporation and the union on 17th July 1989 and submitted that, gratuity has become payable under the settlement and riot under the provisions of the Act. He referred to subsection (5) of Section 4 of the Act and subr mitted that, gratuity can be paid in terms of the provisions of the Act or in terms of the award, settlement, and agreement, etc. , and in this case, the gratuity is paid under the settlement. He also submitted that, in terms of Government Order dated 28-11-1995, though Dearness Allowance reckoned to the government employees for the purpose of calculating the gratuity, but such a calculation is not permissible, as the Corporation is paying gratuity under its regulations and in terms of regulations, the gratuity is calculated by taking one month's wages for every completed years of service and not 15 days as contemplated under Section 4 sub-section (2) of the Act. The gratuity determined under the regulations is beneficial to the employees of the Corporation and the employees have adopted the regulations. He submitted that, one month's pay is taken for the purpose of calculating the gratuity and not one month's wage. If it is wage, it could include the Dearness allowance, but it is not the wage, it is only the pay. In this regard, learned Senior counsel referred to a memorandum of settlement signed on 27th September 1981 and referred to clause (7)and submitted that quantum of gratuity shall be equal to one month's pay for each completed year of service. Referring to the settlement, he further submitted that the Apex Court in Krishna Reddy's case has referred to provisions of Section 4 subsection (2) and referring to the definition of 'wages' observed that, the gratuity is determined based on one month's wages which includes the Dearness Allowance. In this regard, he referred to paragraphs 13,14,15, and 16 of the said judgment and submitted that, under Section 4 sub-section (2) of the Act, if the gratuity is determined under the Act, 15 days' wages is taken into consideration and it is in this context, the judgment of the Apex court is required to be considered. He submitted that, since the Corporation is paying gratuity under the settlement, it is only the settlement, which is applicable, not the decision of the Apex Court. He submitted that, since the Corporation is paying gratuity under the settlement, it is only the settlement, which is applicable, not the decision of the Apex Court. He further submitted that, corporation has not merged or added the dearness Allowance to basic pay for the purpose of computing the gratuity. He also submitted that, the judgment has to be confined as applicable only between the parties and not a judgment in rem to make it applicable to all the employees. He also submitted that, the supreme Court has dealt with the case on facts and not on any issue of general importance and the petitioners cannot take advantage of the said judgment to claim the gratuity by adding Dearness Allowance to the basic pay. (19) As regards to the delay, he submitted that, the petitioners have given representations nearly after 13 years of their retirement and they have accepted the gratuity and it is only after the Krishna Reddy's case, petitioners have woke up and have made a representation claiming the difference of gratuity. In this regard, he made two submissions, one is that, those who were sitting on fence, they cannot make a claim after the judgment, second is that, the delay disentitles the claim even if they are found eligible. (20) In this regard, he referred to the earlier orders passed by this Court between the petitioners and the Corporation and submitted that, when the matter came up before the division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 901/2007, the Division Bench though directed the Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioners case by case, however, at para-9 of the said judgment, Division Bench of this court had kept open all contentions of the parties. In the light of the same, he submitted that, the delay comes in the way of granting relief to the petitioners. In the light of the same, he submitted that, the delay comes in the way of granting relief to the petitioners. (21) In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007 AIR SCW 672 : (AIR 2007 SC 924)in the matter of Chairman, U. P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another and submitted that, the Apex Court in the matter of extending the benefit of retirement age to the employees of U. P. Jal Nigam, declined to grant relief to some of the employees, on the ground of delay particularly who had retired by then, he relied on paragraphs-5 and 6 and submitted that, person who is not vigilant of his right and acquiesces with the situation, no relief could be granted in favour of such persons. Only those persons, who have come in time, would be entitled for the relief. (22) He further distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 AIR scw 885 : ( AIR 2003 SC 1526 ) in the matter of H. Gangahanume Gowda (supra), by pointing out that, the Apex Court on the ground of delay has denied the interest. He also referred to the judgment in the matter of Anil Kumar neotia (supra) cited by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and submitted that, the facts involved in the said decision are different and same is not applicable. He further submitted that, it was the case of acquisition, transfer of undertaking and implementation. The constitutional validity was upheld and in the said circumstances, it became a law declared by the Apex Court and became binding on the others. In respect of judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 787 in the matter of u. P. Pollution Control Board and others v. M/s. Kanoria Industrial Limited and another, he submitted that, it is a case of refund and as regard to the judgment reported in AIR 1988 sc 686 in the matter of K. I. Shephard (supra), he submitted that, it is a case where some of the similarly situated persons were excluded from the benefit and in the said circumstances, the Apex Court has decided the case. He further submitted that, the said judgment do not operate as guidelines nor will help those who have approached the Court after long lapse of time. He further submitted that, the said judgment do not operate as guidelines nor will help those who have approached the Court after long lapse of time. He strongly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of u. P. Jal Nigam (supra) and submitted that, the Apex Court though held that, the benefit of retirement age at 60 was given to the employees of Jal Nigam, but still it denied the same relief to some of the employees of the jal Nigam, only on the ground of delay. He further submitted that, even if the judgment of the Apex Court is applicable, it will be applicable only to such persons, who had approached the Corporation without any delay. He also submitted that, filing representation will not by itself confer any right on the petitioners and this Court having kept the contentions open, the Corporation rigtly has rejected the claim of the petitioners. (23) He also tried to distinguish the judgment in krishna Reddy's case by referring to para 18 inter alia submitting that, the contention as regard to merger and addition of the dearness Allowance, the Supreme Court has not gone into the said question. It is also submitted that, in terms of the Government Order dated 7-1-1999, which came into effect on 1-4-1998, the merger of Dearness Allowance made applicable and not earlier. (24) In the light of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for both the parties, the points that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are : (1) Whether the judgment of the Apex court in Krishna Reddy's case is applicable to other employees of the Corporation? (2) Whether the merger has taken place w. e. f. 1st April 1998? (3) Whether the delay disentitles the claim of the petitioners? (25) Regarding Point No. 1 : the facts, which are not in dispute are : all these petitioners have retired between 28-11-1995 and 31-3-1998. The benefit of addition/merger of Dearness Allowance with the basic pay was extended w. e. f. 1st April 1998 to the Corporation employees. It is also not in dispute that benefit of merger of Dearness Allowance is not given to the employees, who have retired between 28-11-1995 and 31-3-1998. The benefit of addition/merger of Dearness Allowance with the basic pay was extended w. e. f. 1st April 1998 to the Corporation employees. It is also not in dispute that benefit of merger of Dearness Allowance is not given to the employees, who have retired between 28-11-1995 and 31-3-1998. It is also not in dispute that, there was a settlement between the Corporation and the Union on 17th July 1989, in terms of settlement at Clause 5, which reads as under: "5. Dearness Allowance: the rates of Dearness Allowance shall be on par with the rates sanctioned by the State government to its employees from time to time and from the same dates. The enhanced dearness allowance shall be paid in cash. If during the currency of this settlement, the Government of Karnataka were to merge any portion of the Dearness Allowance so merged will also be reckoned at appropriate levels by the corporation for determining the dearness Allowances, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory allowance and gratuity payable to the employees of the corporation, but shall not be reckoned for other purposes." In terms of the settlement, Dearness Allowance shall be on par with the Government employees and had reckoned for the purpose of granting various benefits inclusive of payment of gratuity. It is also not in dispute that, government passed an order dated 28-11-1995, which is produced at Annexure-C, paragraph-2 of the said order reads as under:"2. Government are now pleased to order that Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto the average All India Consumer Price Index (A. I. C. P. I.) 1201. 66 in Government Order No. FD 29 SRP 93, dated 30-10-1993 as indicated below, shall be reckoned as emoluments for the purpose of retirement gratuity/death gratuity under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules in respect of State Government Employees who retire or die on or after 28-11-1995. " It is also not in dispute that, by Government Order dated 7th January 1999, which is annexed at Annexure-Rl to additional statement of objections in W. P. Nos. 828-849/ 2009, the benefit is extended w. e. f. 1st April 1998, new pay scale came into effect inclusive of basic pay, Dearness Allowance. Under the settlement dated 27th September 1981, for the purpose of determining the gratuity, one month's pay for every completed year is reckoned to the employees. These documents are not in dispute. 828-849/ 2009, the benefit is extended w. e. f. 1st April 1998, new pay scale came into effect inclusive of basic pay, Dearness Allowance. Under the settlement dated 27th September 1981, for the purpose of determining the gratuity, one month's pay for every completed year is reckoned to the employees. These documents are not in dispute. It is in view of this settlement and government Order, one of the Corporation employee (R. Krishna Reddy) approached this Court in W. P. No. 31735/1998 arid this Court by its order dated 13th October 2003 allowed the writ petition inter alia observing at para 14 as under:"14. Insofar as the other contention that the government Order only speaks of adding dearness Allowance to the basic pay wherein clause (5) refers to merger of Dearness Allowance with basic pay is concerned, I do not find any substance. The word 'adding of basic pay' adding of Dearness Allowance' or the word "merger of Dearness Allowance with basic pay' are synonyms. There is no difference in meaning with those two phrases. The ultimate result is the same. If such hypertechnical interpretation of these phrases are accepted, it would result in great injustice to one of the parties to the contract. Moreover, they are not words used in any statute. They are the words used by the Government at one place and the respondents in their order. Moreover, in the subsequent order passed by the KSRTC, they have understood the said word as merger and has given benefit to its employees. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the said contention also. " (Underlined by me)Learned Single Judge adverting to the contention of the corporation that merger is not an addition of Dearness Allowance, this Court rejected the said contention by observing that, the word 'merger' or 'addition' does not make any difference. What appears from the order of learned Single Judge is, the Corporation has accepted the merger and has given effect and the learned Single Judge found that, 'merger' or 'addition', it makes no difference and they are synonyms of the same word. In my opinion, whether merger or addition, the effect is the same. Merger is something, which gets included to another, addition will also have the same effect. In my opinion, whether merger or addition, the effect is the same. Merger is something, which gets included to another, addition will also have the same effect. Ultimately, the common feature of both the words is, it is the component of wage i. e. , basic pay + Dearness Allowance. It is this order of the learned Single judge was also called in question before the division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 7954/2003 and the Division Bench by its order dated 9th September, 2005 dismissed the writ Appeal by accepting the order of the learned Single Judge and also accepting the interpretation of the word 'merger of D. A. ' and 'addition of D. A. '. It was also observed that, there is no difference between the merger of Dearness Allowance and adding of Dearness Allowance. (26) It is against the order of Division Bench and the learned Single Judge, matter was taken up before the Apex Court, which is now stated as Krishna Reddy's case. In the light of the rival contentions in the Writ Appeal referred to above and the contentions before the Apex court, it is necessary to consider the said decision to know, whether the judgment of the apex Court is applicable only to parties to the proceedings or is in rem applicable to all the employees of the Corporation. Apex Court while considering the addition or merger of the Dearness Allowance has referred to the government Order dated 28th November, 1995 and has also referred to the Government order dated 7th January, 1999 and considering the actual merger and the settlement has observed at paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 as under: "14. What is, therefore, payable by way of gratuity in terms of the scheme was 30 days wages for each completed year of service. 15. 'wages' has been defined in Section 2 (s) of the Act in the following terms : "wages means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance." 16. We have noticed hereinbefore that the government of Kamataka in terms of Government order dated November 28,1995 inter alia directed that 90% of Basic Pay to be added to pay for calculating gratuity. If the basic pay of an employee was up to Rs. 3500/-per month and was drawing a Dearness Allowance of Rs. 2,000/-, what was to be added was the 90% of the Dearness Allowance which was being paid. If 90% of the Basic pay and Dearness Allowance is to be added to the basic pay, the employee became entitled to higher wages on the basis thereof. It is in that sense the question of application of the merger of Dearness Allowance with the scale of pay arose for all intent and purport. As was rightly held by the learned Single Judge, different terminologies used did not make any material difference. Section 4 of the Act itself contemplates implementation of a settlement. Settlement, therefore, entered into by and between the parties was required to be interpreted having regard to the intention of the parties. What was contemplated by the parties was that the rates of Dearness Allowance would be at par with the rate sanctioned by the State Government to its employees from time to time and from the same date. It was never contemplated that a different amount of gratuity shall be payable to an employee who retires prior to the revision of scale of pay although the terms of the settlement are applicable to his case. " At para-14, the Apex Court has taken into consideration that, 30 days' wages for each completed year of service is required to be considered and referring to the definition of "wages" under Section 2, Clause (s) of the act, the Apex Court has observed that, what was contemplated by the parties was that the rates of Dearness Allowance would be at par with the rate sanctioned by the State Government to its employees from time to time and from the same date. It was never contemplated that, a different amount of gratuity shall be payable to an employee who retires prior to the revision of scale of pay although the terms of the settlement are applicable to his case. At para-17, the Apex Court has observed as under:"17. It was never contemplated that, a different amount of gratuity shall be payable to an employee who retires prior to the revision of scale of pay although the terms of the settlement are applicable to his case. At para-17, the Apex Court has observed as under:"17. What was necessary to be taken into account was the merger of any portion of the dearness Allowance with pay which was being paid to its employees. In such an event that portion of the Dearness Allowance was also to be reckoned at appropriate level by the appellant for determining the quantum of gratuity payable to its employees. The said settlement was arrived at for calculating amount of gratuity payable to the employees of the appellant and not for any other purpose. " (27) Thus, from the reading of the judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that the apex Court was called upon to decide as to whether the Dearness Allowance is required to be merged or added to the basic pay on par with the Government employees, for the purpose of determining the gratuity amount, the apex Court did consider the Government order of 1995,1999 and also the settlement. On consideration of these undisputed documents and also holding that, the payment of gratuity reckons to Corporation employees on par with Government servants and at para-17 has categorically held that, portion of Dearness Allowance was also to be reckoned at appropriate level by the Corporation for determining the quantum of gratuity payable to its employees. The issue involved before the apex Court was one of interpretation of Government Order and entitlement of the Corporation employees for inclusion of Dearness allowance to basic pay for computing the gratuity and if that has been decided, in my opinion, it cannot be held that, the Krishna reddy's case is not applicable to the other employees, who are similarly placed. Apex Court has considered the implication of Government order and implication of the settlement and also the entitlement of an employee of the Corporation and has held that, Dearness Allowance is also included in wage and gratuity has to be calculated by taking into account 30 days' wage for every completed year. Apex Court has considered the implication of Government order and implication of the settlement and also the entitlement of an employee of the Corporation and has held that, Dearness Allowance is also included in wage and gratuity has to be calculated by taking into account 30 days' wage for every completed year. (28) No doubt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation relying on para-18 contended that, Apex Court did not go into the said question, but reading of para-18, it is clear that the Apex Court though has observed that the merger and addition of Deamess Allowance would be different, but considering the definition of 'wages' it has held that, the Dearness Allowance is part of the wages and the employee is entitled for 30 days' wages. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the division Bench, in my opinion, the inclusion of Dearness Allowance to basic wages for the purpose of determining the gratuity has been set at naught by the Apex Court and the said issue is concluded. When the Apex Court in the matter of payment of gratuity to the Corporation employee, who is similarly placed on par with these petitioners, has held that definition of 'wage' includes Dearness Allowance and upheld the judgment of this Court, it certainly binds the Corporation in all its force. The decision of the Apex Court is not on any disputed question of facts, but it was only on the issue of entitlement of Corporation employee, and it has held that, the employee is entitled for computing 30 days' wages for every completed year. In view of the same, the said decision is binding on the corporation as well as all its employees, who are similarly placed. (29) As far as delay is concerned, it is seriously contended that, on account of the delay, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief. (30) The case cited by Sri S. N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel reported in 2007 AIR scw 672 : (AIR 2007 SC 924) in the matter of U. P. Jal Nigam (supra), the facts were that, the retirement age was extended from 58 to 60 years, however, some of the employees had not filed writ petitions and had retired, subsequently after retirement, they had filed the writ petitions and sought for direction for extending the benefit. The Apex Court considering the fact that, they had not worked and they were not in service and by the time they filed the petition, they were retired, held that such persons are not entitled for the benefit. May be, the extension of age of retirement ensures to those who are in service and not those who have retired and there is no possibility to work for the extended period, in such circumstances, granting relief to persons, who have not worked, the Apex Court has held that such persons are not entitled, but same analogy cannot be applied to this case particularly when several things have taken place viz. , the petitioners had approached this Court in W. P. No. 41135/2003 and in the said writ petition, at para-3, the learned Single Judge has observed as under: "3. The Counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that on facts, it is not presently possible to accede that all the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment and that the respondents be given liberty to examine the claim of each of the petitioners on a case by case basis to examine whether they are so entitled or not to the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court and the Government Order, as prayed for." Counsel for the respondents had undertaken to examine the claim of each of the petitioners on a case by case basis in terms of krishna Reddy's case and the Government order. It is in the light of the said submission. Writ Petition was disposed of with a positive direction to ensure that the employees would be entitled for the benefit of Government Order and the judgment of the Apex Court. The order of the learned single Judge was called in question before the Division Bench in Writ appeal No. 901/2007. Before the Division bench also, it is held at para-6 as under :"6. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, in our view, paragraph-4 of the order passed by the learned single Judge has to be understood and given effect to strictly in terms of the undertaking in which the appellant-Corporation has given before the learned single Judge, which has been specifically recorded in paragraph-3 of the order. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, in our view, paragraph-4 of the order passed by the learned single Judge has to be understood and given effect to strictly in terms of the undertaking in which the appellant-Corporation has given before the learned single Judge, which has been specifically recorded in paragraph-3 of the order. The appellant-Corporation having undertaken to examine the claim of the writ petitioners on case to case basis, on the basis of the afore said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Government Order, it is bound to examine the cases of the writ petitioners accordingly. Whether the benefits would follow or not, depends upon the examination of the matter in terms of the said undertaking. While holding that the appellant is to strictly give effect to the statement made before the learned single Judge conceding to examine the matter as recorded in paragraph-3 of the order passed by the learned single Judge, we hold the order of the learned single Judge as indicated in paragraph-4 should be read to the effect that the appellant-corporation shall consider and examine the case of each of the writ petitioners, on a case to case basis, to find out whether they are entitled to the benefits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case referred to supra as well as the Government Order, following there from. Subject to the said clarification, the writ appeal stands disposed of. " The undertaking stated before the learned single Judge was reiterated and the Division bench specifically observed that, the Corporation is to strictly give effect to the statement made before the learned single Judge conceding to examine the matter as recorded in para-3 of the order of the learned single Judge and para-4 of the order of the learned single Judge to be read to the effect that, appellant-Corporation shall consider and examine the case of each of the petitioners on case to case basis to find out whether they are entitled to the benefits in terms of the judgment of the Apex court and the Government Order. It is in the light of the same, a direction was also issued to the Corporation to consider the representation that would be filed by the petitioners again. It is in the light of the same, a direction was also issued to the Corporation to consider the representation that would be filed by the petitioners again. Reading of the order of the Division bench makes it clear that, none of the parties contemplated the delay would deny the relief, but what was seriously contested is that, Corporation cannot examine all the cases based on Krishna Reddy's case but they have to be considered case by case and it is in this context, this Court directed the Corporation to consider each case and treated the submissions as an undertaking. In the light of the order of this Court, it is not now open to the Corporation to contend that, the representations given are belated and they are not entitled for the relief. As submitted by Sri. K. Subba Rao, learned senior Counsel that, the Payment of gratuity Act is a social legislation and payment of gratuity is a financial security for a retired employee and benefit must be extended to such employee, as observed in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of H. Gangahanume Gowda, ( AIR 2003 SC 1526 ) (supra) wherein the Apex Court has observed as under: "payment of gratuity with or without interest as the case may be does not lie in the domain of discretion but it is a statutory compulsion. Specific benefits expressly given in a social beneficial legislation cannot be ordinarily denied. Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. " This observation of the Apex Court read with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and object with which the Act had come into force, only thing that emerges is that, the gratuity is a contribution of employee to secure the benefit of the same at the retirement and such contribution must be honourably paid to the employee when he become entitled. It is in this regard, even the legislature has thought it fit to make it mandatory and has made a provision for penal consequence. Section 9 of the Act makes it an offence if the gratuity is not paid. It is in this regard, even the legislature has thought it fit to make it mandatory and has made a provision for penal consequence. Section 9 of the Act makes it an offence if the gratuity is not paid. Thus, the payment of gratuity is a social obligation on the employer to provide, even assuming that there is a delay, under the provisions of the Act itself, a person, who is entitled for gratuity and has not been paid, has a right to approach the Controlling Authority with an application for condonation of delay. This indicates that, in the matter of payment of gratuity, a liberal view is required to be taken in the matter of delay also. Considering the said fact and also considering the fact that, petitioner had already approached this Court and this Court having considered all such contentions, ultimately had directed the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners one by one on the basis of the judgment in Krishna Reddy's case and the Government Order. It is not now open to contend to the contrary, even if such contentions were available and raised or not raised, in view of the provisions of Section 11, Explanation-4 of CPC, they are not open to be raised now, if at all the Corporation had contemplated that the delay is the only ground, nothing prevented the corporation to raise such contention earlier when the matter came up before this Court. (31) As far as judgment of the Apex Court is concerned, it is now made clear that, it is applicable not only to the petitioners, but also to such of the employees, who have not approached the Court, as observed earlier by the apex Court in similar circumstances in the matter of Maharaj Krishan Bhatt, (2008 AIR scw 5421) (supra) and in the matter of K. I. Shephard (supra) and also in the matter of N. Parameshwarappa (supra) wherein it is held that, the benefit of the judgment accrued to the similarly placed persons cannot be denied on the ground that some of the employees or persons had not approached the Court. This observation is made particularly in reference to payment of gratuity. Gratuity being the only solace to retired employee for his remaining life and which becomes payable after retirement. This observation is made particularly in reference to payment of gratuity. Gratuity being the only solace to retired employee for his remaining life and which becomes payable after retirement. (32) In the light of the above, all the employees, who are on par with Krishna Reddy's case, will become entitled for consideration of their case, irrespective of the fact, whether they have approached the Court or not. In the Circumstances, all the Writ Petitions are allowed. The endorsements dated 13th august, 2008, 10th November, 2008, which are produced at Annexures-Q1 to Q-30 are quashed and the Corporation is directed to determine the balance of the gratuity by taking into account the decision in Krishna reddy's case. If there is any dispute as regard to the quantum of gratuity amount, parties are at liberty to enforce the same in accordance with law. All that is decided in these cases is that, the principle enunciated in Krishna Reddy's case is applicable to all the employees, who are similarly placed on par with Krishna Reddy. Petition allowed.