[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Manoharan D vs Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing ... on 3 December, 2025
WA NO.951/2024 1
2025:KER:93236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY,THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/12TH AGRAHAYANA,1947
WA NO.951 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.37503/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MANOHARAN D.,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.DAMODHARAN M.S. MANU BHAVAN,
THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685584
2 MOHANAN K.K.,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN, PALLIPURATH, KANJIRAMATTAM,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI., PIN - 685585
3 K.K.SIVAN,
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.KUMARAN,
AYYAPPASADANAM, THEKKUMBHAGAM P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685585
4 MOHANAN K.K.,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN K., KARINKATTIL MOHANAM,
ANGADICKAL SOUTH P.O., CHENGANNOOR, PIN - 689122
5 BABY JOSEPH,
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.K.S. JOSEPH, KUZHIVELIL (H), KALLIMALI,
MAMMATTIKANAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 689122
WA NO.951/2024 2
2025:KER:93236
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN
SMT.VINEETHA BOSE
SMT.CINDIA S.
SMT.UMMUL FIDA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND
MARKETING) CORPORATION,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M) CORPORATION LTD.,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR., PIN - 696001
BY ADVS.
SRI.NAVEEN T., SC, R1 & R2
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.12.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1220/2024, 1222/2024, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.951/2024 3
2025:KER:93236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY,THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/12TH AGRAHAYANA,1947
WA NO.1220 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.36325/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHANKARA NARAYANAN P.A.,
AGED 68 YEARS
POOSSERY HOUSE, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O.,
KUTTIMUKK, TRISSUR, PIN - 680631
2 MOHANAN K.K,
KUNNEKATTUKARA (H), EAST POTTA,
POTTA P.O., TRISSUR, PIN - 680722
3 THILAKAN P.S.,
POIKADAN (H), KUTTICHIRA P.O.,
KUNDUKUZHIPADAM, TRISSUR, PIN - 680724
4 N.M.MANOHARAN,
NAROTH PARAMBIL (H), AYYANTHOLE P.O.,
TRISSUR., PIN - 680724
5 M.G.BABU,
MAMBILLY (H), KAANDASSAN KADAVU,
KAARAKUKKU, PIN - 680613
6 K.K.CHANDRAN,
S/O.KUNJAKKAN, KARAYIL (H),
EDAMUTTAM P.O., TRISSUR, PIN - 680568
WA NO.951/2024 4
2025:KER:93236
7 CHANDRAN P.V.,
PANAPARAMBIL (H), CHOOLUR P.O.,
VALAPAD VIA, TRISSUR, PIN - 680567
8 SURESH KUMAR A.B.,
ALAIKAL (H), CHOOLUR P.O.,
VALAPAD, PIN - 680567
9 VENUGOPAL K.P.,
KOLANTHRA HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM, TRISSUR,
CHENDRAPINNI EAST, PIN - 680681
10 R.SUDHAKARAN,
S/O.RAMAN, PUTHUSSERIL (H), THODUPUZHA P.O.,
OLAMATTAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685584
11 SASI P.K.,
S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PARAKKAL (H), KOLANI P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685608
12 CHANDRA SALIM K.,
SREE KRISHNA BHAVAN, ELAPPARA P.O.
IDUKKI, PIN - 685501
13 SATHEESAN C.M.,
S/O MADHAVAN, CHILANKA, MANAKKAD P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685583
14 FRANCIS K.,
FEBIN VILLA, TRINITY NAGAR,
KARUMANOOR PARASSALA, PIN - 695502
BY ADVS.
SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
SMT.UMMUL FIDA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORPORATION
LTD.,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WA NO.951/2024 5
2025:KER:93236
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M)
CORPORATION LTD.,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS CHIEF WELFARE
FUND INSPECTOR, PIN - 695001
BY ADV.
SRI.NAVEEN T., SC, R1 & R2
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.12.2025, ALONG WITH WA.951/2024 AND CONNECTED CASE, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.951/2024 6
2025:KER:93236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/12TH AGRAHAYANA,1947
WA NO.1222 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.35649/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 KALADHARAN K.,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY,
KOZHUKKULLIPPADICHOORAKKODE CHOOLANOOR P.O.,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678574
2 ARJUNAN C,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.CHELLAPPAN, VRINDAVAN NAGAR
198 KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691008
3 MADHUSOODANAN K.,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.KUMARAN, THRIKKADAVOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691601
4 UNNIKRISHNAN P.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.PARAMU ,VILAYILVEEDU, MEENADU,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691572
5 RAGHUNATH M.G.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, INDIRAMANDIRAM,
KULANGARABHAGAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691583
WA NO.951/2024 7
2025:KER:93236
6 BABU. M.,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.MADHAVAN
MANUSSERIL HOUSE, ULAVAKKAD,
NOORANAD PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690504
7 RAJAN R.,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.RAGHAVAN, REVATHY MANDIR, AICKADU,
KODUMAN P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691555
8 SADASIVAN K.,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.KESAVAN AKHILNIVAS, ADOOR P.O.,
AMMAKANDAKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691523
9 RATNAKARAN PILLAI K.,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.KUNJAN PILLAI MADAPPALLY,
CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691585
10 PRASANNA KUMAR C.,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI
AYYANEZHATHU, THOTTINUVADAKKU
CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691583
11 SADASIVAN A.N.,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN ANJILIPARAMBU, VADAKKAL P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688003
12 BALANPILLASATHEESHKUMAR,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.BALANPILLA, ROHINI, MANAKKAD NAGAR, 95 D,
VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691010
13 RAVIKUMAR S.,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.SANKARAN K.,
GOWRISANKARAM, MALAMELBHAGAM
KAREEKULANGARA. P.O., KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690572
WA NO.951/2024 8
2025:KER:93236
14 BALAKRISHNAN N.,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. NANU, BEERA BHAVANAM, KADAMPANADU
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691552
15 THAMPI. C.,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.CHINNA PANICKER, ELIPPAKULAM P.O.,
VALLIKKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
16 SARASAN.S.,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.SUKUMARAN PERUMPRALVADAKKATHIL,
PADANILAM P.O., NOORANAD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690529
17 N.K.VIJAYAN,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.KUNJAPPAPANICKER NAMBIYARKULANGARA
KIZHAKKETHIL NADUVILEMURI, NOORANAD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690529
18 RAJAN G.,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDAN, ASHARETHEKIZHAKETHIL
PEROORKARAZHAMA, THAMARAKULAM
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690505
19 RAJENDRAN O.,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.UMMINI, MANASSERIL, ERUVA P.O.,
ALAPPUZA, PIN - 690572
20 SASIKUMAR A.S.,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, INCHOOR, AMBALAMPADY,
VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
21 NJALOR JOSEPH FRANCIS,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, NJALOOR HOUSE, KANJIRAKKAD
RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683543
WA NO.951/2024 9
2025:KER:93236
22 SURENDRAN P.K.,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.KUMARAN,
PUTHENKUDY, MANACKAPPADY, PIRAROOR,
MATHOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574
23 RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.J.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, KADAKAVOOR P.O.,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695306
24 N. KRISHNAN NAIR,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.E.NEELAKANTAN PILLAI,
GOKULAM, PANIMOOLA, ANDOORKONAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695584
25 RAVEENDRAN K.
AGED 63 YEARS
C/O. SATHYABHAMA C.
CHULLIMADA, ERIMAYUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678546
26 MANIYAN S.,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. SUKUMARAN
MANIVILASAM, VALIYAELA THOTTAVARAM,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695304
27 RAVEENDRAN NAIR. M,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI
SAROJINIMANDIRAM, NETHAJI LANE,
KAZHAKOOTTAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
28 VIDHYADHARAN R.,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.RAMAN, KRISHNAPRIYA, KODUVAYUR.PO
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678501
29 K.KANNAN,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.KOTHANDAN, KURUTHIKODE HOUSE,
THARUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678544
WA NO.951/2024 10
2025:KER:93236
30 MOHANAN K.M.,
AGED 63 YEARS
KUNDIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKETHARA, KUTHANNUR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678721
31 CHANDRAN,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. KARTHU, SRUTHINIVAS, CHATHAMANGALAM,
NENMARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678508
32 SREENIVASAN T.K.,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN
THOTTUPURATH HOUSE, BANK ROAD, AYALUR,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678541
33 MADHUSUDHANAN P.K.,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.KUTTAN THAVALAKKULAM, MLA ROAD,
NENMARA, CHITOOR, PIN - 678508
34 UNNIKRISHNAN L.,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.LAKSHMANAN MOOTHATTUPARAMBU,
KUZHALMANNAM PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678702
35 BABY THOMAS,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS, KOCHUZHATHIL, THIRUVAZHIYAD PO
THIRUVILAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678510
36 JOY MATHEW,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, NEDUMPALAKUNNEL, SWTS ROAD,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
37 SUKUMARAN.P.,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.PADMANABHAN CHENGAZHAVELIL, THAZHEKKARA P.O.,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690102
38 GOPALAKRISHNAN P.,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. PADMANABHAN
WA NO.951/2024 11
2025:KER:93236
SUDHEESH BHAVAN, THAZHAKKARA.P.O.,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690102
39 K.SASIDHARAN,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.U JANAKI THEERAM, ASRAMAM P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691002
40 VENUGOPAL P.G.,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.GANGADHARAN
PUZHAKKAREDATH, MUTTINAKAM,
VARAPUZHA PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517
41 VENU T.,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.AMMUNNI,
PULICKAL PADATHU HOUSE, UDAYAMPERUR PO.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
42 PRADEEP KUMAR
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.CHANDRASHEKHARAN, EZHUTHASSANPARAMBIL,
ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680641
43 VIJAYAN T.
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.THANKAPPAN KATTAPPULLIL HOUSE,
AVALUKUNNU PO., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688006
44 RAJU K.P.,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. DAMODARAN, KAITHAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MAVELIPURAM KATTOOR P.O, PIN - 688546
45 SIVADASAN E.G.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAN, IDAMURIYIL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHI,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688523
46 AMBIKESAN P.,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. PARAMU., BLOCK 18, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013
WA NO.951/2024 12
2025:KER:93236
47 JOHNY JOSEPH,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, 125 METHARU, AVALUKUNNU P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688006
48 VIJAYAKUMAR C.V.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, CHERUPUNNAYIL, SL PURAM P.O.,
SITHALAKSHMIPURAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688523
49 VINOD KUMAR C.G,
AGED 62 YEARS
CHAKINGALTHODI, VADANAMKURISHI, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679121
50 M.E.MATHAI,
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.LOVELY MATHEW,
MAPPANIKKATTU, ADIMALY, CAMPCO JUNCTION,
MANNAMKANDAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685561
51 SUSY JOSE,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O.JOSE V.J., VADAKKUMCHIRAYIL, NEAR NIRMALA
SADAN, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, MARADY PART,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686661
52 P.C.SOMAN,
AGED 72 YEARS
PANOLI HOUSE, EDAMUTTAM PO. VALAPPAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680567
53 SATHEY E.P.,
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O.LATE P. SANAL PRASAD EDAKKATTIL HOUSE,
NETTOOR, MARADU ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682040
54 PONNU. C,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.CHAMI, VAKKAVU, NEMMARA,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678508
55 PRASANNA.P.,
AGED 63 YEARS
WA NO.951/2024 13
2025:KER:93236
RAMANILAYAM, PALAYAPETTA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
56 KALPAKAVALLY K.P.,
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O.KALADHARAN, 409, MEZHUKILVEEDU, CHITRA
JUNCTION, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678008
57 K.K. SASIKUMAR,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. K.KARUNAKARAN, KARUNALAYAM, ERUMAKKUZHY,
NOORANAD P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690504
58 VASANTHAKUMARAN NAIR,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI ,USHAS, T.P.NAGAR,
VENPAKAL PO., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695123
59 SHAJI K
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. KUMARAN M.K.
CHENNAMMAVINAL, ADIMURIYIL, ELAVUMTHITTA P.O.
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689625
60 T.K.SURENDRAN,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O KESAVAN THOTTUPURATH, KALIYAR P.O.,
VANNAPURAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685607
61 JOSE THOMAS,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O THOMAS KAROTTUTHAZHATH, PANNIMATTOM P.O.
VELLIYAMATTOM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685588
62 GHOSH K.K.,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN K.P.,
KOICKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM,
THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685585
63 GEORGE PAUL,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O PAILY, CHAVITTANIYIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM P.O.
WA NO.951/2024 14
2025:KER:93236
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685585
64 XAVIOUR K. LUIES,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O K.X. LUIES, KOLLAMPARAMBIL,
KUMARAMANGALAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685608
65 SAMRAJ C.G.,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O GEORGE, VIJAYALAYAM, ARAKUNNU, NEYYANTINKARA,
ARUVIPPURAM P.O. PERUMKADAVILA,
TIRUVANANTHAPUARAM, PIN - 695126
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN
SMT.UMMUL FIDA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M)CORPORATION,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M)
CORPORATION LTD.,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
3 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , REP. BY ITS CHIEF WELFARE
FUND INSPECTOR, PIN - 695001
BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, R1 & R2
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.12.2025, ALONG WITH WA.951/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.951/2024 15
2025:KER:93236
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.951/2024, 1220/2024, 1222/2024]
Dated this the 03rd day of December, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
These appeals arise from a common judgment dated
13.03.2024 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
Nos.37503, 35649, and 36325 of 2022. Appellants were the
petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions. Since common questions
arise for consideration in these Writ Appeals, they are heard and
disposed of together. W.A.No.951 of 2024 is treated as the lead
case for easy reference to the facts and exhibits.
2. Appellants, who are retired abkari workers of the 1st
respondent Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd., had
filed the Writ Petitions airing their common grievance that the 1st
respondent Corporation had declined them gratuity payable under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gratuity
Act"), for the purported reason that terminal benefits were already
being paid to them by the 3rd respondent, viz., Kerala Abkari Workers
2025:KER:93236
Welfare Fund Board (KAWWF). The following prayers were sought in
the Writ Petitions:
"(i) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2
to pay gratuity to all the petitioners herein as eligible under Rule 76 of
the Service Rules of the Corporation, forthwith ;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order
declaring that abkari workers are entitled to get gratuity under the
Payment of Gratuity Act and under Rule 76 of the Service Rules of
the 1st respondent Corporation ;
(iii) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular
documents produced by the petitioner in this case ; and
(iv) such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case"
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C)s inter alia
holding that if the contentions of the appellants are accepted, the
same would amount to double payment of gratuity, i.e., one under the
Welfare Fund and the other under the Gratuity Act, thus leading to
unlawful enrichment. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of their Writ
Petitions, the appellants are before us in appeal.
4. Heard Sri.Deepu Thankan, Advocate on behalf of the
appellants, Sri.Naveen T., Advocate, Standing Counsel for
respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.S.Krishnanmoorthy, Advocate for the 3 rd
respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
2025:KER:93236
impugned judgment is not sustainable for multiple reasons. The
conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that an employee
governed by any other Act or Rules providing for payment of gratuity
is not an 'employee' within the definition of the Gratuity Act is
erroneous. Reliance is placed on the definition of 'employee' under
Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, and it is contended that the exclusion
applies only to persons who hold a post under the Central
Government or State Government and are governed by any other Act
or Rules providing for payment of gratuity. It is submitted that it is
clear from the said definition that an employee under the respondent
Corporation would not be excluded from the ambit of the said term
and would undoubtedly come within the meaning of the term
employee under the Gratuity Act, as the respondent Corporation
cannot be subsumed within the words Central Government or State
Government.
6. Relying on Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, it is submitted that
the said provision lends an overriding effect to the Act over any other
inconsistent provision in any other enactment. Merely for the reason
that the employees of the 1strespondent Corporation, like the
2025:KER:93236
appellants, received benefits under the Kerala Abkari Workers
Welfare Fund Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAWWF Act'), the
same will not by itself disentitle them from getting the benefits under a
central statute.
7. Gratuity, it is submitted, is a statutory right of the appellants,
which cannot be taken away except in accordance with the provisions
of the Gratuity Act. Section 5 of the said Act empowers the
appropriate Government to exempt an establishment from the
purview of the Act, if the employees therein receive gratuity and
pension benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred
under the Act. Unless such an exemption is expressly issued/
ordered by the appropriate Government, gratuity which is a statutory
right and entitlement cannot be denied. The benefits under the other
enactments, for instance, the KAWWF Act, which may confer some
advantage to the appellants, cannot be stated as a disentitlement to
claim gratuity. The learned Single Judge overlooked the said aspect
while rendering the impugned judgment.
8. It is submitted that all the employees of the Corporation are
entitled to gratuity under the Gratuity Act, and the 1st respondent had
2025:KER:93236
taken a unilateral stand that the gratuity under the Gratuity Act
applies only to regular employees and not to abkari workers who are
governed by the KAWWF Act. The said stand taken by the 1 st
respondent, without comparing the benefits under the respective
enactments, is arbitrary and unsustainable, and the classification
made by the learned Single Judge based thereon, it is submitted, is
violative of the provisions of the Gratuity Act and unsustainable in
law. Reliance is placed on the precedents laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court to buttress the contentions put
forth. The learned counsel thus prays that the impugned judgment
may be set aside and the prayers in the Writ Appeal may be
allowed.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge
does not require any interference as the same has been rendered
validly and in accordance with law. The provisions of the Gratuity Act
are not applicable to the abkari workers working in the respondent
Corporation, and their gratuity and allied benefits are governed by the
provisions contained in the KAWWF Act. Being members of the
2025:KER:93236
Board, they are entitled to receive benefits, including continuation of
service up to 60 years. The KAWWF Act had been enacted with the
object of providing social security to abkari workers, and as per
Section 3 of the said Act, the fund is to be utilised for various
purposes, including payment of gratuity, payment of pension,
payment of provident fund, family pension etc. As per the Kerala
Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, 1990, an eligible employee is
entitled to gratuity benefits under clause 36 of the scheme. This
effectively disentitles the appellants from claiming gratuity under the
Gratuity Act. The learned Single Judge had rightly noted the same
and dismissed the Writ Petitions.
10. It is further submitted that the appellants are not employees
of the 1st respondent Corporation and that they continued as abkari
workers. Reliance is placed in this respect on the service conditions
of abkari workers as evolved by the respondent Corporation.
Pointing to Ext.R1(a) G.O. dated 18.02.2002, wherein it had been
concluded that the membership of the relevant categories of the
Abkari Workers Welfare Fund will continue, and the contribution of
the workers will be collected from the wages of the workers and,
2025:KER:93236
along with the contribution of the employer, will be remitted to the
Welfare Fund Board. Thus, the benefits already availed under the
scheme and the fund disentitles the appellants from raising any
claims as seen made in the W.P.(C).
11. Reliance is also placed on the bilateral agreement entered
into between the 1st respondent Corporation and the union leaders of
the different trade unions, which had been produced as Ext.R1(b).
The learned counsel points to the terms of settlement at clause (iii)(b)
thereof in which it had been stated that the benefits like provident
fund and gratuity etc. are covered under the Abkari Workers Welfare
Fund Board and hence the 1st respondent shall be making statutory
contribution along with the contribution of the worker to the Kerala
Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board. Exts.R1(a) and (b) apply to
abkari workers enrolled till 01.04.2000. Further, the chart laid out in
the counter affidavit filed in the W.P., reveals that the Gratuity Act is
not more beneficial than the Scheme, and on the said ground, too,
the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the W.P.(C). It is
thus submitted that the Writ Appeals do not merit any interference
and they are only to be dismissed.
2025:KER:93236
12. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered
the contentions put forth. The principal question that comes up for
consideration in these appeals is whether the learned Single Judge
was right in dismissing the W.P.(C)s holding that the appellant
employees, being eligible to provident fund and gratuity under the
Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, are disentitled from claiming
gratuity under the Gratuity Act and whether they stand excluded
from the definition of 'employee' under the Gratuity Act. The
correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge
that the contentions of the appellants, if affirmed, would amount to
double payment of gratuity, ie., one under the welfare fund and the
other under the Gratuity Act, and thus lead to unlawful enrichment, is
also to be scrutinised. Before proceeding to consider the said
questions, it would be relevant to remind ourselves of the settled law
on the point regarding entitlement to gratuity. Sections 2 (e), 4 (5), 5
and 14 of the Gratuity Act assume relevance in the context of these
appeals.
13. Section 2 (e) of the Gratuity Act defines an 'employee' as
follows:
2025:KER:93236
"(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice)
employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine,
oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any
skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory,
technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such
employment are express or implied, and whether or not such
person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity,
but does not include any such person who holds a post under
the Central Government or a State Government and is
governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for
payment of gratuity."
The exclusion from the term 'employee' envisaged in Section 2 (e) is
thus with respect to persons who hold a post under the Central
Government or a State Government and are governed by any other
Act or by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity.
14. As regards Section 4 (5) of the Gratuity Act, it preserves
better gratuity benefits by stipulating that nothing in Section 5 relating
to payment of gratuity shall affect the right of an employee to receive
better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract
with the employer. This ensures that the minimum gratuity prescribed
by the Act does not prevent employees from claiming more
favourable benefits from awards, agreements contracts with the
employer.
15. Section 5 of the Gratuity Act envisages a power to exempt
whereby the Government may issue a notification to exempt any
2025:KER:93236
establishment or group of employees from the provisions of the
Gratuity Act if they already receive gratuity or pension benefits that
are not less favourable than those provided under the Act. Such
exemptions may apply to entire establishments or specific
employees/classes of employees. A notification in the said respect
could be issued retrospectively, but not earlier than the Act's
commencement, and not in a manner that could prejudicially affect
the interests of any person.
16. Section 14 of the Gratuity Act envisages an overriding
effect on the provisions therein by stipulating as follows:
"The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder
shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in
any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any
enactment other than this Act."
Section 14 thus ensures that the provisions of the Gratuity Act will
prevail over any other law, Rule, contract or instrument that is
inconsistent with the stipulations therein. The benefits and protections
of the Gratuity Act thus cannot be taken away by agreements or
regulations that offer fewer benefits, and the same applies to all
employees to whom the Act is applicable.
17. Statutory mandates being so, the precedents laid down
2025:KER:93236
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court on the subject also
assume relevance. As regards exemption from payment of gratuity
under the Gratuity Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad
Bank and another v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees
Association (2010 KHC 6062) has held that an establishment is
bound to pay gratuity unless a specific exemption has been obtained
from the appropriate Government. Thus, there cannot be an
exemption from payment of gratuity unless granted by the appropriate
Government.
18. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash
Sharma and another [(1998) 7 SCC 221], it has been held that
there mere fact that the gratuity is provided for under the Pension
Rules will not disentitle an employee to receive the payment of
gratuity under the Gratuity Act in view of the overriding effect of the
latter statute. In BCH Electric Ltd. v. Pradeep Mehra [(2020) 15
SCC 262], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for applicability of
Section 4(5), two choices must be available to employee, ie., one
under provisions of Act and other under arrangement with employer,
and if the latter offers better terms of gratuity under "any award or
2025:KER:93236
agreement or contract with employer". The relevant portion of the
judgment reads as follows :
"19. For Section 4(5) of the Act to get attracted, there must be
better terms of gratuity available and extendable to an employee
"under any award or agreement or contract with the employer" as
against what has been provided for under and in terms of the
Act. In other words, as against what is made applicable by the
Act, if better terms are available under any such arrangement
with the employer, Section 4(5) stipulates that nothing in Section
4 shall affect the right of any employee to receive such better
terms. Thus, when two choices are available, one under the
provisions of the Act and one under such arrangement with the
employer and if the latter offers better terms, the employee
cannot be denied right to receive those higher benefits."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagar Ayukt Nagar
Nigam, Kanpur v. Mujib Ullah Khan and another [(2019) KHC
6391] has held that the Central Government statute has an overriding
effect over other laws.
20. In Allahabad Bank v. A.C.Aggarwal [(2013) 4 SCC 141],
reference was made to Section 14 of the Gratuity Act and it was held
that:
"19. In view of the plain language of the above reproduced
provision, which contains a non obstante clause, every eligible
employee is, notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained
in any other enactment or instrument or contract is entitled to
gratuity. Therefore, even if the respondent had opted for
pension, he could have legitimately claimed gratuity without
being required to refund the amount of pension already
received by him."
A Division Bench of this Court in Kerala State Co-operative Bank
2025:KER:93236
Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram v. S.Viswanathamallan and another
[2022 (4) KHC 717] referring to the judgment in BCH Electric
Limited v. Pradeep Mehra [(2020) 15 SCC 262] has held that when
two choices are available, one under the provisions of Gratuity Act
and other under such arrangement with the employer and if the latter
offers better terms, employee cannot be denied the right to receive
those higher benefits. This Court in Rajendra Prasad v. State of
Kerala (2023 (4) KHC 136) held that the employees of the Kerala
State Housing Board could claim gratuity in terms of Section 4 of the
Act as the Gratuity Act has an overriding effect over Kerala Service
Rules Part III, though, in such circumstances, they cannot claim
gratuity under other Rules.
21. It follows from the above settled position of law as
discernible from the statutory provisions and the precedents that
exclusion from the definition of employee under Section 2 (e) requires
two aspects to co-exist, ie, he must be holding a post under the
Central Government or a State Government and must be governed
by another Act or by any Rules providing for gratuity payment. The
latter part alone cannot be extrapolated to deny entitlement to
2025:KER:93236
gratuity. The learned Judge thus erred in concluding that a person
who is governed by any other Act or Rules for providing payment of
gratuity will be excluded from the definition of employee under the
Gratuity Act and the provisions thereof. Mere coverage of benefits,
under any other law by itself will not suffice to exclude a person from
the definition of employee. The former part that is, he should be
holding a post under Central or State Government must also be
satisfied. The learned Single Judge erred in this respect.
22. As regards the question of exemption, it is trite that an
establishment is bound to pay gratuity unless a specific exemption
has been obtained from the appropriate Government. Admittedly, in
the case at hand, no such exemption had been issued as regards the
payment of gratuity to the appellants. The mere fact that the gratuity
is mentioned among many other benefits offered under the Scheme,
will not disentitle the appellants from seeking the payment of gratuity
under the Gratuity Act. This is so that the Gratuity Act is a Central
Statute that has an overriding effect over other laws. It is open to the
appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from the
operation of the provisions of the Act, if in its opinion the employees
2025:KER:93236
of such establishment are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits
not less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act. If the
Government has not issued such exemption, the entitlement to claim
and receive gratuity continues to vest in the employee and cannot be
denied. It is also relevant to note in this context that the Gratuity Act
is a social welfare legislation, and when social security legislations
are being interpreted, they are to be interpreted liberally, giving the
widest possible meaning which the language permit [See Maniben
Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer, Dahod and
others [(2022) 16 SCC 343].
23. The learned Single Judge had concluded that abkari
workers like the appellants form a different class and cannot be
equated with the regular employees of the respondent Corporation
who are working in the sanctioned posts. Further since a bilateral
agreement had been entered into between the respondent
Corporation and the various trade unions which envisaged benefits
like provident fund and gratuity it was concluded that the appellants
are not entitled to gratuity under the Gratuity Act. In this respect, we
find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants
2025:KER:93236
that a classification of employees of the Corporation unilaterally
without a comparative study of the benefits accruing under both
statutes is not a proper method to be adopted especially since a
statutory right is denied on the basis of such tentative classification.
Such an exercise of classification ought to be carried out with great
circumspection and care to analyse the comparative merits and
should mandatorily be followed up by the Government with the
invocation of the exemption provision. Unilateral classification which
found approval in the impugned judgment cannot be justified
especially when it denies the statutory right to gratuity. The
conclusion regarding unjust enrichment too cannot be sustained as
any denial of statutory right through a manner or method beyond
what is envisaged under law is improper and unsustainable. Receipt
of amounts/emoluments under a scheme/fund evolved under law and
simultaneous receipt of a statutorily ordained gratuity cannot be
termed unjust enrichment. If the State perceives it as double
benefit the power to exemption ought to have been invoked as
envisaged in law. On the said ground too, the Writ Appeal has to be
allowed.
2025:KER:93236
In view of the above, we find that the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge is erroneous and the impugned judgment is to be set
aside. It is hereby ordered so and the appeals are allowed.
Respondents are directed to pay gratuity to the appellants herein
based on their eligibility under the relevant Service Rules of the
respondent Corporation as well under the Gratuity Act. Necessary
steps in the said direction shall be taken by the 1 st respondent
Corporation expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2025:KER:93236
APPENDIX OF WA NO.1222 OF 2024
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS) NO.
24/2006/TD DATED 1-3-2006 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.
Annexure R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS) NO.
137/2006/TD DATED 26-12-2006 ISSUED BY
THE GOVERNMENT, ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
