JUDGMENT : (Easwaran S., J.) The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, (for short, ‘the K.S.R.T.C’) has come up with this intra court appeal aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with Ext.P5 order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Government. 2. The facts in brief for the disposal of the appeal are as follows. By G.O.(P) No.45/2013/LBR dated 4.4.2013, the Government of Kerala exempted the K.S.R.T.C from the operation of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The party respondents, who were employed by the K.S.R.T.C as empanelled conductors, raised a claim under Ext.P2 dated 05.9.2014 before the Government stating that they are entitled to the payment of gratuity for the services rendered by them. In furtherance to the said representation, the employees of the appellant Corporation approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25396 of 2014 and, this Court, by judgment dated 30.09.2014, directed the Government to take a call on the representation submitted by them. By G.O.(MS) No.53/2015/LBR dated 12.05.2015 (Ext.P5), the Government revisited their decision and held that the employees of the K.S.R.T.C would be governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act subject to the production of sufficient records of continuous service of five (5) years to the concerned authority. Thus, the requests of the employees were allowed. The primary concern of the Government was that, the K.S.R.T.C grants pensionary benefits to the regular employees, but, since the respondents are not eligible for pension as they were appointed on daily wages as empanelled conductors, they were entitled to gratuity if they have continuous service of five (5) years as per Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. For reasons best known to K.S.R.T.C, the said order remained unchallenged for nearly three (3) years. Later, when the K.S.R.T.C was required to defend the claims of the employees who approached the controlling authority in terms of the provisions contained under the Payment of Gratuity Act, they found it difficult to sustain their objections in view of Exhibit P5 order. The controlling authority passed an order dated 29.4.2017, allowing the claims of the party respondents. Challenging the order of the controlling authority, the appellant approached the writ court by filing Writ Petition No.594 of 2018. The controlling authority passed an order dated 29.4.2017, allowing the claims of the party respondents. Challenging the order of the controlling authority, the appellant approached the writ court by filing Writ Petition No.594 of 2018. It is only when the order of controlling authority was challenged before this court, the appellant realised its mistake of leaving Exhibit P5 order unchallenged for nearly three years and for the first time raised a challenge in the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge, while accepting the challenge to Ext.P9 order on the ground that the controlling authority could not have passed an omnibus order of allowing the claim, set aside the said order and directed the 2nd respondent to adjudicate the claim of the party respondents individually with notice to the appellant and also to the individual claimants. While doing so, the learned Single Bench declined the challenge to Ext.P5 order. 3. We have heard Sri. Renjith Thampan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as instructed by Sri. P.C. Chacko, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. 4. Sri. Renjith Thampan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised three fold arguments. 1. By Ext.P1, the Government of Kerala had exempted the K.S.R.T.C from the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the said notification was published in the official gazette. Since Ext.P5 was not published in the official gazette, the same does not have the efficacy of law. 2. Ext.P5 order did not affect the appellant until and unless the claim of the individual workers were considered and allowed by Ext.P9 order by the controlling authority, which necessitated the appellant to approach the writ court challenging Ext.P5. 3. In so far as Ext.P5 order is concerned, the Government of Kerala did not take notice of the provisions contained under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and erroneously held that an employee who has been working on daily wage basis is also entitled to get gratuity. With specific reference to Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the learned Senior counsel pointed out that the gratuity shall become payable to an employee on termination of his employment after he had rendered continuous service for not less than three years and on his superannuation or on retirement or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel, none of the party respondents before this Court would satisfy the criteria under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, hence, the Government of Kerala erred in issuing Ext.P5 order. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Velukutty Achary Vs Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. [1992 KHC 411], State of Uttaranchal and Another vs Sunil Kumar Vaish and others [ 2011 (8) SCC 670 ] and Gulf Goans Hotels Company Ltd. and another Vs Union of India and others [ 2014 (10) SCC 673 ]. 5. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 6. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to appreciate the scheme of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the scope of exemption clause under the Statute. Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which provides for the exemption reads as under: “Power to exempt (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the employees in such establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. (2) The appropriate Government may, by notification and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any employee or class of employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act, if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, such employee or class of employees are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. (3) A notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be issued retrospectively a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, but no such notification shall be issued so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person." 7. (3) A notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be issued retrospectively a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, but no such notification shall be issued so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person." 7. No doubt, the appropriate Government has the power to exempt any establishment from the purview of the Act. What is required under the said provision is a notification. Once the notification is issued, the establishment can seek exemption from the operation of the Statute. In the case of the appellant the initial notification was published in the official gazette of the State. We must hasten to add that as per the Statute, there is no requirement for the publication of the notification issued under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act in the official gazette. True that the publication of the notification in the official gazette is intended to bring the factum of exemption into the public domain. However, the question before us would be whether the notification was actually intended to cover the employees like the party respondents. For finding out the true purport of the notification dated 4th April 2013, we need to advert to the explanatory note under Exhibit P1 which reads as under: Explanatory Note (This does not form part of the notification, but it is intended to indicate its general purport) The employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation are in receipt of gratuity, pension and commutation of pension as pensionary benefits under the Kerala Service Rules, which are more favourable than the benefits conferred under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Government are satisfied that exemption under Section 5 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is to be given retrospectively with effect from 1st April 1984, the date of introduction of the pension scheme into the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation subject to the condition that such a retrospective exemption shall not prejudicially affect the interest of those persons who received gratuity under the said Act. This notification is intended to achieve the above object. 8. Although the explanatory note to Ext.P1 does not form part of the notification, in order to find out the true purport of the notification, the explanatory note has to be looked into. It is thus the cardinal rule of interpretation. This notification is intended to achieve the above object. 8. Although the explanatory note to Ext.P1 does not form part of the notification, in order to find out the true purport of the notification, the explanatory note has to be looked into. It is thus the cardinal rule of interpretation. The explanatory note clearly spells out the reason for issuing the order of exemption in favour of the appellant Corporation. The employees of the KSRTC do receive the gratuity, pension and commutation of pension as pensionary benefits under the Kerala Service Rules which are more favourable than those benefits conferred under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, the State Government felt that exemption under the Act is to be given retrospectively from 1983 onwards. We must however notice here that as far as the party respondents are concerned, they are not governed by the Kerala Service Rules and hence the notification of exemption is not applicable to the employees appointed on a daily wage basis. It is an admitted fact that the services of the employees were utilised continuously. Therefore, we have no other alternative but to hold that the Exemption under Ext.P1 did not cover the case of party respondents and the appellant was totally misconceived on the applicability of Ext. P1 notification. 9. Before we delve upon the next contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the notification recalling exemption had to be published in the official gazette otherwise it loses its efficacy of law, we had raised a query on the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay. Pertinently, the order recalling the exemption was passed after hearing the K.S.R.T.C on 12.05.2015. The appellant allowed the said order to be in force, which certainly resulted in accruing an indefeasible right on the part of the party respondents. Based on the said order, the party respondents successfully pursued their individual applications under the provisions of the Act before the controlling officer for claiming the gratuity. The said applications were considered and, by a common order, Ext.P9, their claims were upheld. Although, the appellant without availing the alternate remedy against Ext.P9 order filed the writ petition, by raising a challenge to Ext.P5, there is no explanation given for the delay in filing the writ petition. 10. The said applications were considered and, by a common order, Ext.P9, their claims were upheld. Although, the appellant without availing the alternate remedy against Ext.P9 order filed the writ petition, by raising a challenge to Ext.P5, there is no explanation given for the delay in filing the writ petition. 10. Though the question of delay was not raised before the learned Single Judge, in the intra court appeal, we are not powerless to consider this question going by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chuba Jamir and Others vs. State of Nagaland and others [ 2009 (15) SCC 169 ]. When this query was raised, the Learned Senior counsel for the appellant, pointed out that the right to challenge Ext.P5 order accrued on the appellant only when it materially affected them ie: when Ext.P9 order was issued by the controlling authority upholding the claims of the individual employees. However, we are afraid that we cannot accept the contentions of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant. It is not as though the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the Government. The decision to make the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act applicable to the party respondents was taken by the Government as per the directions of this Court. Certainly, the appellant cannot plead ignorance or raise a fallacious contention that Exhibit P5 order did not affect them materially unless and until the individual claims were allowed by the controlling authority. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition was also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 11. Learned Senior counsel raised a further argument that only if Ext.P5 notification is published in the gazette, the same comes into force and in the absence of the publication of Ext.P5 notification in the Gazette, it has no efficacy of law. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal vs Sunil Kumar Vaish and others [ 2011 (8) SCC 670 ] and Gulf Goans Hotels Company Ltd. and another Vs Union of India and others [ 2014 (10) SCC 673 ]. In the decisions cited above, the Apex Court considered the question of publication of a notification issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act by the Union of India. In the decisions cited above, the Apex Court considered the question of publication of a notification issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act by the Union of India. The said notification was affecting the general public at large, and in that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the notification ought to have been published in the Official Gazette in order to become operative. The same principle however cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, the appellant, the K.S.R.T.C, filed Ext.P4 objection, which was considered, and after hearing them, Ext.P5 order was passed. Therefore, Ext.P5 order was affecting the appellant as an establishment and not as a general public, and there was no requirement to publish the same in the official gazette. When we read Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, we could not find any requirement of law that mandates the appropriate Government to publish the notification in the official gazette granting exemption to any establishment. A reading of Section 5 would show that what is required is only a notification. The fact that Ext.P1 notification exempting an establishment from the purview of the Act was published in the official gazette would not make it mandatory for the Government to publish Ext.P5 notification also. Equally we must say that at first instance, Ext. P1 notification was not applicable to the party respondents and what was done by the Government was to clarify the true purport and intent of Ext.P1 notification. Thus, we are constrained to hold that the contention of the appellant Corporation has no legal basis. 12. Before parting with the case, we need to address on the last question raised by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act will not apply to a daily wage employee and that the payment of gratuity shall be made applicable or payable only on the retirement, death or termination of service of an employee. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Velukutty Acharay Vs Harrisons Malayalam Limited [1992 KHC 411]. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the principles laid down by the Division Bench, we are of the view that the same is distinguishable on facts. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Velukutty Acharay Vs Harrisons Malayalam Limited [1992 KHC 411]. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the principles laid down by the Division Bench, we are of the view that the same is distinguishable on facts. A reading of Ext.P6 application filed before the controlling authority at least prima facie shows that the deceased employee was working from 30.8.1990 to 31.5.1999, and was having a total uninterrupted service of nine (9) years. The wage last drawn by the employee was Rs.3,843/-. Of course, the period of employment has to be necessarily proved before the controlling officer. We have noticed these facts only to deal with the contention of the learned Senior counsel with regard to the applicability of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In this context, it is pertinent to note the findings of the controlling authority in Ext.P9 order. We also noticed the fact that many of the applicants were appointed on a daily wage basis as drivers and conductors, and the services of most of them were regularised by the employer. The attendance details produced before the controlling authority would also show that these employees worked more than five years. It is in this regard that the learned Single Judge had set aside Ext.P9 order and remanded the matter back to the controlling authority to ascertain the details of employment of each individual and to pass separate individual orders. Therefore, we are not impressed by the argument of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act will not apply to the party respondents concerned. Hence we reject the aforesaid arguments. As an upshot of our findings, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality, much less jurisdictional error in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge calling for interference by us in exercise of powers in this intra court appeal. For the aforementioned reason, we are not inclined to issue notice calling upon the party respondents to answer the claim of the appellant. The intra court appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.