Shankaranarayan Bhat K vs The Joint Registrar (General)
2022 Latest Caselaw 9202 Ker

                 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. 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

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

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

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

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.