Kerala High Court
Thomas Joseph vs Malanadu Co-Operative ... on 2 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 36417 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 THOMAS JOSEPH , AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH,
RESIDING AT MAVATH HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDY P.O,
KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685515.
2 C.M. RADHAMANI, SREEKRISHNA BHAVANAM, KALTHOTTY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT SREEKRISHNA BHAVANAM,
NEAR KJDMB UP SCHOOL, PARIPPALLY, EZHIPPURAM ROAD,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691574.
3 M. N. MOHANDAS, NADUVILEDATH HOUSE, KALLAR P.O,
THANNIMOODU, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685552.
4 E.M. ANNAKUTTY, PUTHETTU HOUSE, KATTAPANA SOUTH P.O,
SANTHINAGAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685515.
BY ADV P.V.BABY
RESPONDENTS:
1 MALANADU CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.K-352, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI
DISTRICT- 685553, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY .
2 BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE MALANADU CO-OPERATIVE
AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.K-3
NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685553, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRESIDENT.
3 THE MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE OF CORPORATION OF INDIA,
JEEVAN PRAKASH, 2ND FLOOR, STAR JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-
686001.
BY ADVS.
P.C.SASIDHARAN
SAHASRANAMAN PB
T.S.HARIKUMAR(K/782/1989)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 36417/22
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners impugn Exts.P5 to P8 proceedings of the 1 st
respondent - Society, through which, their request for payment of
eligible balance gratuity has been rejected saying that they have
already been disbursed with the entitled amounts.
2. Sri.P.V.Baby - learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that his clients have been paid only Rs.10 lakhs each
and that too, being the amounts paid to the Society by the Life
Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) under a Group Gratuity
Scheme. He asserted that law has been now well settled by a
learned Full Bench of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala
State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.
[2017 (4) KLT 276], that if better terms are available to an
employee - either under the Payment of Gratuity Act, or under
Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter
referred to as 'KCS Rules for short), same will necessary have to be
honoured by the Society. He argued that this not having been
done, Exts.P5 to P8 deserve to be set aside.
3. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned Standing Counsel for the
WPC 36417/22
Society, however, submitted that this Writ Petition has been filed
on an experimental basis by the petitioners, after having obtained
all eligible amounts. He argued that, as has been stated in Exts.P5
to P8, amounts due to the petitioners at the time when they
became eligible to gratuity have been honoured and that
subsequent amendments in law would not be applicable to them.
4. Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman - learned Standing Counsel for the
3rd respondent - LIC, submitted that the amounts due to the
Society and eligible to the petitioners, have already been paid by
his client; and therefore, prayed that no further orders be issued
against them.
5. When I evaluate and consider the afore submissions, it
is indubitable that law has been now well settled that what is
important to see is whether the retired employees are entitled for
better terms, either under the Group Gratuity Scheme, or the
Payment of Gratuity Act, or Rule 59 of the KCS Rules. An enquiry
in this regard will necessarily have to be taken into account as per
the Bylaws/Regulations of the Society and the manner in which the
provisions for Payment of Gratuity are ingrained therein.
WPC 36417/22
6. That said, Exts.P5 to P8 do not even reflect upon such a
consideration, but merely goes to say that all amounts due to the
petitioners have been paid, but without explaining how.
7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that, in the light of
Chandrasekharan Nair (supra), the entire matter will require to be
reconsidered by the Society, after hearing the petitioners.
Accordingly, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Exts.P5
to P8; with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to
reconsider the claims of the petitioners, adverting to their
Bylaws/Regulations and verify whether any better terms are
available to the petitioners under the same, or under the Statutory
Scheme.
The resultant order in this regard shall be issued by the 2 nd
respondent as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and all
eligible amounts thus found shall be disbursed to the petitioners
within a period of three months thereafter.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 36417/22
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36417/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 1/2/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A TE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 1/2/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 10/10/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 1/2/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER RECEIVED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 19/10/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER RECEIVED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 19/10/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER RECEIVED BY
THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 2/11/2022 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER RECEIVED BY
THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 19/10/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
