Elsamma Alex v Rubber Board Employees Co-operative Society Ltd

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2013-04-03
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed in part. i) Arrears of gratuity rejected; ii) Arrears of salary payable as per the Society’s letter dated 13/10/2011; iii) Payment of such arrears to be made within one month from receipt of the judgment copy.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed with directions (arrears payable as specified; gratuity arrears rejected)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Elsamma Alex

Respondents

Rubber Board Employees Co-operative Society Ltd
Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Jyoti Pension Scheme

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. N. Mohanan
• I. Vinayakumari

Counsels for Respondents

• Mathew John (K)
• Domson J. Vattakuzhy
• S. Easwaran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court concerns the computation and disbursement of gratuity and related arrears in the context of a retired employee of the Rubber Board Employees Co‑operative Society Ltd. The petitioner, Elsamma Alex, retired on 31 October 2010 after 33 years and 3 months of service, and contends that she has not been paid the entire gratuity amount due and seeks arrears in salary and medical expenses. The court notes that the Gratuity Act is not applicable to the petitioner's case and that Rule 59 of the Co-operative Societies Rules governs gratuity, with a proviso limiting gratuity to 15 months’ pay. The petitioner had argued for a calculation based on 15 months’ pay using the last drawn salary, criticizing a prior LIC payment of gratuity as possibly in excess of entitlement. The learned counsel for LIC contends that excess amounts need not be recovered by LIC, citing a judicial principle. The judge rejects the petitioner’s wider calculation, holding that the maximum 15 months of pay must be considered and that the last drawn salary should be the basis, not a 26‑day month interpretation. The court also records the Society’s liability to arrears of salary and notes a letter dated 13/10/2011 indicating arrears of Rs.1,81,619, with further arrears to be paid. The petition is allowed in part, with gratuity arrears rejected and salary arrears directed to be paid within one month, as per the 13 October 2011 letter.

Provisions of Law Cited

Gratuity ActRule 59 of the Co-operative Societies RulesProviso to Rule 59

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that gratuity must be calculated to reflect 15 months’ pay based on the last drawn salary, and that despite LIC’s payments, she is entitled to the remaining balance; she questioned the interpretation that allowed a 26‑day month calculation and contended that the gratuity act does not apply, with Rule 59 controlling the figure. She also sought arrears of salary and related expenses.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that gratuity is limited to 15 months’ pay under Rule 59, with the last drawn salary as the basis, and that any overpayment by LIC should not be recoverable by LIC; the Society acknowledged liability for arrears of salary and argued the need to adhere to a settled computation under the rules and the 13/10/2011 letter for arrears."},

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Retnavally v. Ambalappadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.	2005(3) KLT 320	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that LIC cannot recover gratuity amounts paid in excess of entitlement.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2013/13TH CHAITHRA 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 20225 of 2011 (C)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) :** **ELSAMMA ALEX, (RETIRED SECRETARY OF RUBBER BOARD EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.K.155), PANICKAMURIYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI** **RESPONDENT(S) :** **-----------------------** **1. RUBBER BOARD EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.K.155, REPRESENTED BY THE, SECRETARY COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **2. MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, JEEVAN JYOTHI PEENSION SCHEME, STAR JUNCTION KOTTAYAM 686 001.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) R BY ADV. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **WP(C).No. 20225 of 2011 (C)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** **P1: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 25/99. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER.** **P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 23/6/2011.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **BP** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J** ## *** * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.20225 of 2011 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of April 2013 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner claims that he is not paid the entire amount of gratuity. There is an outstanding amount of Rs.90,809/- towards arrears of salary and Rs.1,500/- is payable as medical expenses. The petitioner retired from service on 31/10/2010 after having completed 33 years and 3 months of service in the respondent society. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.8,00,739/- has been paid towards gratuity by the 2[nd] respondent L.I.C. Certain further amounts were paid on account of revision of salary. According to the petitioner, the gratuity is not correctly computed. 2. It is not in dispute that Gratuity Act has no application and the petitioner's claim is based on Rule 59 of the Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred as the Rules). Proviso to Rule 59 indicates that in no case the W.P.C.No.20225/2011 2 gratuity shall exceed 15 months pay. According to the petitioner, gratuity has to be calculated in the following manner: _Gratuity payable is Rs.49,323 x 33 x 15_ _--------------------------- = Rs.9,39,034/26_ 3. I do not think so. When the Rule is very specific which indicates that gratuity shall not exceed 15 months pay, the last drawn salary of the petitioner definitely has to be taken into account and the maximum limit up to 15 months has to be paid. This is not a case where a calculation is possible on the basis that the monthly salary payable is for a period of 26 days. Such a provision will not apply when a maximum limit is specified. That being the situation, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to make any claim other than 15 months pay. Whether LIC has paid any amount in excess of what the petitioner is actually entitled to is a different question. 4. Learned counsel for the LIC submits that such amounts cannot be recovered by LIC as held by this Court in W.P.C.No.20225/2011 3 ## **Retnavally v. Ambalappadu Service Co-operative Bank** **Ltd.** _[2005(3) KLT 320]_ . 5. Therefore the petitioner has no reason to worry that any amount will be recovered from him which is already paid as gratuity in excess of what is actually entitled to. 6. In regard to the claim for arrears of salary and other benefits, there is no dispute that the Society is liable to pay the said amount to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice a letter dated 13/10/2011 issued by the Society inter alia stating that the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner is Rs.1,81,619/-. It is also stated that any amount which is remaining as arrears will be paid to the petitioner. 7. In the result, writ petition is allowed with the following directions: i) In regard to the claim for arrears of gratuity, petitioner's relief is rejected. W.P.C.No.20225/2011 4 ii) In regard to the claim for arrears of salary, the petitioner is entitled for all such arrears as stated in the letter dated 13/10/2011 by the respondent society. iii) The payment of arrears shall be made to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr W.P.C.No.20225/2011 5 W.P.C.No.20225/2011 6