IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 22005 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 SHANKARANARAYAN BHAT K
AGED 66 YEARS
RETIRED SECRETARY, THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD., P.O. PERLA. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. S/O GOVINDA BHAT,
R/AT KAYARGADDE HOUSE, KATTUKUKKE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT.
2 MAHABALA BANTA. M.,
RETIRED ASSISTANT SECRETARY, THE PERLA SERVICE CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LTD., P.O. PERLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. S/O
MADANA BANTA, R/AT MOODAMBAIL HOUSE, PUNACHA VILLAGE,
MOODAMBAIL.P.O., BANTWAL TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE.
3 GOPALA PATALI. S.,
RETIRED ATTENDER, THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD., P.O. PERLA. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. S/O SUBBA PATALI,
R/AT SOORDELU HOUSE, KATTUKUKKE VILLAGE, KASARGOD
DISTRICT.
BY ADV KODOTH SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KASARAGOD -671323,
2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KASARAGOD - 671323.
3 THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
P.O. PERLA. KASARAGOD DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (LIC),
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF
WP(C) NO. 22005 OF 2022
2
INDIA LTD., JEEVAN JYOTHI, M.G. ROAD, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT - 671121.
BY ADVS.
SAHASRANAMAN PB
T.S.HARIKUMAR(K/782/1989)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 22005 OF 2022
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated to have retired from the services of the 3rd respondent - Society on various dates; but allege that they have not been paid eligible gratuity in terms of the statutory Scheme.
2. Sri.Kodoth Sridharan - learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, though certain portions of the gratuity entitled to his clients have been paid, the balance have been withheld; and therefore, that they were constrained to approach the Society, through Exts.P1 to P3, which have, however, fallen on deaf ears, leading to Exts.P4 to P6 proceedings now being issued, saying that no further amounts are eligible to them.
3. The learned counsel asserts that Exts.P4 to P6, are without legs to stand on forensically and therefore, that they are liable to be set aside by this Court.
WP(C) NO. 22005 OF 2022 4
4. Even though summons has been validly served on the 3rd respondent; they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; thus inferentially guiding me to the impression that he has nothing to offer in answer to the allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition.
5. However, going by Exts.P4 to P6, it appears that the stand of the Society is that at the time when the petitioner retired, there was a ceiling of Rs.20 lakhs specified under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Gratuity Act', for short); and that this amount has been paid to each of the petitioners from out of the payments made to them by the 4 th respondent - Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), under a Group Gratuity Scheme. He argued that, therefore, the petitioners cannot now claim anything further than what has been paid to them.
6. Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman - learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, affirmed that his client has paid the entire amount due to the petitioners under the Group Gratuity Scheme WP(C) NO. 22005 OF 2022 5 and thus pleaded that no further orders be issued against his client.
7. When I hear the learned counsel for the parties on the afore lines, it is indubitable that law has now been well settled that payment of gratuity to every employee of the Society is to be implicitly guided by the provisions relating to payment of gratuity, as stipulated in their byelaws. If the bye-laws have adopted the 'Gratuity Act', then obviously, the rigour of the said Statute will also apply. However, it must be borne in mind that in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and Others v. Kerala State Co- operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and Others [2017 (4) KLT 276], a learned Full Bench of this Court has declared the law affirmatively that if the Society has joined the Group Gratuity Scheme, which would give a larger benefit to an employee than what is stipulated in their bye-laws, same would also be eligible to them.
8. In the case at hand, the undisputed facts would show WP(C) NO. 22005 OF 2022 6 that the LIC has paid the entire amount under the Group Gratuity Scheme to the credit of each of the petitioners and that this amount has been disbursed by the Bank, without withholding any amount from it.
9. The question, therefore, is whether the bye-laws of the Society would permit a further payment or whether the limitations under the 'Gratuity Act' would apply. This has not been touched upon by the Society in any of their impugned orders, namely Exts.P4 to P6; with them maintaining that all benefits, as eligible, have been paid.
10. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the competent Authority of the Bank must hear the petitioners and consider Exts.P1 to P3, to take a decision in the light of the precedents which presently holds the field, thus leading to appropriate orders thereon.
Resultantly, without entering into the merits of the dialectical contentions affirmatively at this stage, I allow this writ WP(C) NO. 22005 OF 2022 7 petition and set aside Exts.P4 to P6; with a consequential direction to the Society to hear the petitioners and consider their plea hinged on then bye-laws and the 'Gratuity Act'; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise, the petitioners are found eligible to be paid any further amount than what has been already disbursed to them, such action shall be completed within a period of two months thereafter.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB WP(C) NO. 22005 OF 2022 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22005/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/06/2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5/06/2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/06/2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/04/2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/04/2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/04/2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.