H.V. Kumar Nair and Others v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Bank Ltd. and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 H.V. KUMAR AGED 68 YEARS S/O HRISHIKESAN NAIR, MAHALEKSHMI, T.C. NO. 6/1352(5), PTPA NO. 27, PTP AVENUE ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 013** - **2 L.THANKAMONY AGED 68, D/O. LASKHMY,LVMRA 95, MANI NIVAS, VARAMBASSERRY JUNCTION, VANCHIYOOR P.O., KUNNUKUZHI, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 035** - **3 O.LALITHAMBIKA AGED 67, D/O. SMT.OMANA AMMA, LEKSHMI SHYLAM, KOORA 230, KOTTAVILA, VATTIYOOR KAVU P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 013** - **4 N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 69, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, VIJAYA BHAVAN, ALUMMOODU, KANIYAPURAM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 301** - **5 K.ABDUL KAREEM AGED 66, S/O. KAHDER KUNNU, T.C.49/378,PANAVILA LANE, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 009** - **6 C.DHARMAPALAN AGED 71 YEARS** - **S/O. P.CHELLAYAN NADAR, ASILI,HOLY CROSS CHURCH ROAD, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 522** - **7 R.ANANDAN AGED 70, S/O. S.RAGHAVAN, SURABHI, TC 11/2735, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 015** **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **2** - **8 B.MOHANKUMAR AGED 66, S/O. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, NIPAMA ERAYANKODE, KANDALA P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 012** - **9 K.C.SASIKUMAR AGED 70, S/O. CHELLAPPAN C.K., FLAT 6E, SOWPARNIKA, PROMEADE,POONTHI ROAD, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 029** - **10 S.SASIKUMARAN, AGED 69 YEARS** - **S/O. N.SREEDHARAN, ASWATHY BHAVAN,AMMA GARDEN, ERATTAKKALUNGU, MALAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 571** - **11 P.V.ALIAS AGED 68, S/O. VARKEY, PUTHIAYATH (H), ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 561** - **12 B.VASANTHAKUMARI AGED 69, D/O. N.VAMADEVA PNICKER, VASANTHAM, TC 30/1893 (2), PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 024** - **13 N.SUGATHAKUMARI AGED 69, D/O. P.G.NARAYANA PILLAI, SUGATHA BHAVAN, HOUSE NO 601,PRASANTH NAGAR, ULOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 011** - **14 R.RAMSWAMY AGED 68, S/O. A VENKITACHALAM, BHAGYA SADAN, WESTERN GAGE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001** - **15 C.SANTHA, AGED 68, D/O. CHELLAMA, TC 26/1900, GPO LANE, STATUE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 001** - **16 L.A.NETTO, AGED 68, S/O. V.L.NETTO, E-320, NANDINI GARDEN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 023** - **17 T.K.MOHANKUMAR** - **AGED 68, S/O. K.S.KESAVA PILLAI, TC 21/1295, SARADA BHAVAN, KRA-90, NEDUMCAUD, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 002** **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **3** - **18 JOY THOMAS AGED 67, S/O. THOMAS, THENGUMPALLIL, MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 5876** - **19 MOTTI THOMAS** - **AGED 67, S/O. E.M.THOMAS, MOUNT PELASANT, MOOLEDEM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 012** - **20 M.ALIYARUKUNJU AGED 67, S/O.MAITHEEN KANNU, KANAKUZHY,PALLIVETTA, ARYANAD P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 543** - **21 A.P.AVARACHAN** - **AGED 67, S/O. PAILY, ELAYIDATHU HOUSE, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI-685 561** - **22 P.C.JOSE AGED 66, S/O. P.O.CHACKO, PARACKAL HOUSE, MALLOOSERY, KOTTAYAM-686 041** - **23 K.M.JOSEPH AGED 67, S/O. MATHEW JOSEPH,** - **KATTORAMKUNNAL,PUTHUPALUY (P.O.), KOTTAYAM** - **24 P.T.NALINI AGED 70, D/O. T. KUNHIKELPAPPAN, NAVYA, 1/3056 A, POLYTECHNIC ROAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-673 005** - **25 ABDUL SALAM AGED 69, S/O.. MOHAMMED, MADARI HOUSE, EDVANA P.O.,MALAPPURAM-676541** - **26 K.K.VIJAYAN** **AGED 66 YEARS** - **S/O. GOVINDA KURUP, SREE RAGAM, WEST AVENUE, WEST HILL, CALICUT-673 005** - **27 K.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 67, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KRISHNA SREE, ILLAMMOOLA, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670 702** - **28 ABDUL BASHEER AGED 69, S/O. SULAIMAN RAWTHER, POOKKAD, CHEMBAKASSERRY, THATHAMANGALAM P.O., PALAKKD-678 102** **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **4** - **29 BETSY M.JOHN AGED 68, D/O. M.G.JOHN, SHARON 17/593, BEHIND CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001** - **30 K.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 68, S/O. KUNHIKRISHNAN PILLAI, SURABHI, KALASEKHARA, MANGALAM, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM** - **31 K.RAMACHANDRAN AGED 67, S/O. KITTU, PALLATHANPULLY, THATHAMANGALAM P.O., PALAKKAD-678 102** - **32 R.SIVARAMA IYER AGED 69, S/O.S.RAMAKRISHNA IYER, XXVII/20, PAVAKULANGARA ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNKULAM-682 301** - **33 P.V.CHACKO AGED 70, S/O. VARGHESE, VANNAMKARA, CMC 12, SHERTALLAY.P.O., PIN-688 524** - **34 K.KUTTAN AGED 67, S/O. CHATHAN, KODAPPARAMABIL HOSUE, DOWN HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 519** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL BANK LTD.** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001** - **2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 001** - **3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PATTOM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 004** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE R3 BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).30677/2018(H), WP(C).32176/2019(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **5** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.30677 OF 2018(H)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**P.V BALAKRISHNAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 71 YEARS**| ||**S/O CHEERAN MARAAR,**| ||**VAISHAK,**| ||**ACHIKKONAM P.O.,**| ||**KASARAGOD - 671 121.**| |**2**|**M. SURENDRAN**| ||**AGED 59 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KARUNAKARAN,**| ||**SARADA NIVAS,**| ||**VELLUVAPPARA,**| ||**AZHIKODE P.O.,**| ||**KANNUR - 670009.**| |**3**|**S INDIRA DEVI**| ||**W/O. V. RAJKUMAR,**| ||**RAKHENDU,**| ||**TC 92/2483, MERA-9,**| ||**ANAYARA,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695029.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.R.T.PRADEEP**| ||**SMT.M.BINDUDAS**| ||**SRI.K.C.HARISH**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND**| |---|---| ||**RURAL BANK LTD**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,**| ||**HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION,**| ||**TVPM-695 001.**| **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **6** **2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE R3 BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).33169/2018(U), WP(C).32176/2019(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **7** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.32176 OF 2019(V)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**B.SITA**| |---|---| ||**AGED 59 YEARS**| ||**W/O. AYYAPPAN KURUKKAL M, YEENAM, TC 55/2436,**| ||**VIVEKANANDA NAGAR VRA 93, PAPPANAMCODE P.O,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 018**| |**2**|**ISHA V,**| ||**AGED 61 YEARS**| ||**W/O. SUDHIRAJAN N, NEDUVILA, CHENTHUPOORU, VENKODE**| ||**P.O, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028.**| |**3**|**JAYACHANDRAN P.K,**| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KRISHNA PANICKER, SREEJAYAM HOUSE NO.**| ||**53/2817A, KUNJAN BAVA ROAD, PONNURUNNI, OPPOSITE**| ||**HARMONY ENCLAVE, POONITHURA VILLAGE, VYTTILA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM-682 019**| |**4**|**AMBIKA M,**| ||**AGED 61 YEARS**| ||**W/O. K. VIJAYACHANDRAN, KRISHNAKRIPA, AN-31A,**| ||**ADARSH NAGAR, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-**| ||**695 004**| |**5**|**ISA BEEVI K.A,**| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**W/O. U.V. MURALEEDHARAN, ANJALY HOUSE,**| ||**KANJIRAKKADU, NEAR SNDP SHAKHA OFFICE, RAYONPURAM**| ||**P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 543**| |**6**|**SHEELA CHANDRAN T,**| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**W/O. SARASAN, CHANDRA BHAVAN, VARANAM P.O, VARANAM**| ||**S.O, ALAPPUZHA-688555**| **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **8** - **7 K. RAMESH KUMAR, AGED 60 YEARS** **S/O. R. KRISHNAN NAIR, TC 13/1098(1), ULLUKKODU VEEDU, CHATTAMBI SWAMY NAGAR, KANNAMMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.** - **8 SAJU PETER, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. M.C. PETER, SUN DALE, HOUSE NO. SIRRA-77, SUNDARA IYER ROAD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 101** - **9 ASHOK KUMAR V, AGED 59 YEARS** **S/O. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, T.C. 25/1131, JAYA BHAVAN, MANORAMA ROAD, EAST THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001** - **10 P. JEEVADAS, AGED 60 YEARS** - **S/O. PAKYAM, SPRING WHITE, PR GARDENS, POOJAPPPURA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 012** - **11 RUBY ZACHARIAH, AGED 60 YEARS W/O. V. PAHALA, T.C. X/1132, ALPHA COTTAGE, BENEDICT NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015.** - **12 UNNI .E.T, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. THAMI, ELIYATH THARAYIL HOUSE, EDAPAL P.O, MALAPPURAM-629576.** **13 V. SASIDHARAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. VASU, NIDHI, THEKKEVILA P.O, KOLLAM-691 016** - **14 R. VIJAYAN, AGED 60 YEARS** **S/O. P. RAGHAVAN, THENGULILAYI HOUSE, OLLEGE NAGAR 182, THILLERY, KOLLAM-691 001** - **15 S. SASANKAN, AGED 60 YEARS** **S/O. SIVADASAN, GEETHANJALI, AMBEDHKAR SCHOOL ROAD, KALPETTA P.O, CHUNDALE, WAYANAD-673 123.** **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **9** - **16 K.B. RAJANAND, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. K. INDIRA THAMPURATTY, RAJ BHAVAN, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD-679503** - **17 T.G. KAMALASANAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SIVAM HOUSE, AIMANAM, PARIPPU P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 014** - **18 RADHAKRISHNAN K.P, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. K.N. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KIZHAKKINATTU HOUSE, S.H. MOUNT P.O, PERUMPAIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686 006** - **19 VIJAYAN M.V, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, ASWATHI, PANG ROAD, KULATHUR P.O, MALAPPURAM-679 338** - **20 A. UNNI, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. LAKSHMI, ATHOLI HOUSE, MUNDUPARAMBA P.O, MALAPPURAM-676 509 BY ADVS. SHRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN SMT.V.S.RAKHEE SMT.K.J.GISHA SMT.SAYUJYA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.12.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).30677/2018(H), WP(C).33169/2018(U), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 7[th] day of December 2020** This order of mine shall dispose of three writ petitions, whereby identical question and prayer has been sought. The facts are being taken from W.P.(C)No.33169 of 2018. The petitioners are retired employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., (KSCARD Bank). They had on their credit meritorious service ranging from 27 to 35 years. The service of petitioners in the Bank after 1995 alone is to be considered for pension owing to the implementation of pension scheme by the Bank ie., merging a portion of the provident fund with pension fund. As a result thereof, are drawing meager amount of pension. The petitioner raised the claim for payment of gratuity amount with interest which has been kept pending awaiting the decision from the court. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the Bank had already released the substantial amount of gratuity along with the interest to **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **11** those fellow employees, who moved before this Court. It is in that background, the petitioners submitted the claim for payment of balance gratuity through representation. The controversy in question has already covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in **Chandrasekharan Nair.G. And Others v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Bank and Others (2017 (4) KLT 276)** . 3. On the other hand, counsel representing the respondents raised an objection that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief being a service dispute between the retired employees and the bank. And required to avail efficacious remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act which has to be adjudicated before the Co-operative Arbitration Court established under Section 70A of the Act. 4. Firstly the Bank was registered under Section 10 of the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 and thereafter became KSCARD Bank and now working under the provisions of Kerala State Co- **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **12** operative Societies Act, 1969. Its income is depended upon the interest margin obtained from the loan disbursed under the scheme promulgated by NABARD. Bank adopted the Group Gratuity Pure Endowment Scheme, governed by Payment of Gratuity act 1972 and by virtue of Section 62 read with Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 the bank has not taken any decision restricting the rights/eligibility of the employees. The Gratuity Fund was administered by Gratuity Trust, consisting of employees. 5. Respondent Bank was a member of LICs Group Gratuity Pure Endowment Scheme up to 31.8.2003. It is the LIC, which calculates the premium to be paid by the Bank on a yearly basis commencing from 1[st] of every September. It is on that basis the LIC arrived at the eligible gratuity to the retired employees. In fact the bank had given the entire amount received from the LIC. The enhancement gratuity from 3,50,000/- to 10,00,000/came in to force with effect from 24.5.2010. The petitioner, who retired prior to the date would not be **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **13** entitled to the benefit of enhancement in the absence of any retrospective applicability. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is a force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question with regard to payment of gratuity to the employees, even, if the amount due is more than the premium paid, the employer has been held liable to make the payment. The aforementioned observation of mine is derived from the ratio decidendi culled out by full Bench of Court in Chandrasekharan Nair.G. (supra). It would be apt to reproduce paragraph 5 7 and 8 of the aforementioned judgment. “5. The liability to pay gratuity does not get shifted to the insurer by the compulsory insurance and the effect is only that the maturity value of the master policy would go to the credit of the dues of the employee. Any amount in excess of the gratuity due would also go to the employee since the contract of insurance would fall within the ambit of Section 4 (5) of the Central Act. Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under Section 4(2) of the Central Act. The insurer cannot be made liable to pay any amount in excess of the maturity value of the master policy as the same would be dependent on the premium paid to him. The compulsory insurance under Section 4A of the Central Act is only to facilitate the employer to discharge his liability and the premium paid is part of the wages only. Of course the wording of the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** ## **14** Rules gives rise to a doubt that the employee would be pinned down to the amount of gratuity specified in the Central Act. Such an interpretation would render Section 4(5) of the Central Act otiose where under the employee has a right to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. The provisions of the Central Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or instrument or contract. The overriding effect of the Central Act over other enactments is explicit from Section 14 of the Central Act which is to the following effect: '14. Act to override other enactments, etc.-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.' 7. The dominant intention of the Central Act is to provide for a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments. The dominant intention of the State Act is to provide 15/12/2020 Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Co operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. / for the orderly development of the co-operative societies in the State as selfgoverning democratic institutions. A provision in the Central Act to give effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally be on the same subject as covered by the provision in the State Act. But such partial coverage of the same area in a different context and to achieve a different purpose does not bring about the repugnancy which is intended to be covered by Article 254(2) of the Constitution. We shall quote the decision in Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka ((1990) 2 SCC 562) wherein it is held as follows: “53. The aforesaid review of the authorities makes it clear that whenever repugnancy between the State and Central legislation is alleged, what has to be first examined is whether the two legislations cover or relate to the same subject matter. The test for determining the same is the usual one, namely, to find out the dominant intention of the two legislations. If the dominant intention i.e., the pith and substance of the two legislations is different, they cover different subject matters. If the subject matters covered by the legislations are thus different, then merely because the two legislations refer to some allied or cognate subjects they do not cover the same field. The legislation, to be on the same subject matter must further cover the entire field covered by **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **15** the other. A provision in one legislation to give effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally be on the same subject as covered by the provision of the other legislation. But such partial coverage of the same area in a different context and to achieve a different purpose does not bring about the repugnancy which is intended to be covered by Article 254 (2). Both the legislations must be substantially on the same subject to attract the article.” (emphasis supplied) There is no repugnancy (in the sense that one Act cannot be obeyed without disobeying the other) and therefore every endeavour has to be made to reconcile the provisions and give a harmonious construction. 8. The following decisions were cited at the Bar by the counsel for either sides: (i) Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2005 (3) KLT 320). (ii) Nedupuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Rugmini (2011 (3) KLT 1 34(D.B.)). (iii) Mathew Korah v. Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-operative Bank (2013 (4) KLT 558). (iv) The Travancore Cements Employees’ Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Ramachandran Nair (2014(1) KLT 889 (D.B.)) and (v) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. K.P.Varughese (2015 (3) KLT SN 57 (C.No.78) = ILR 201 5(3) Ker. 420 (D.B.)). None of the above decisions dealt with the second proviso to R.59(iii) of the Rules substituted with effect from 2.11.2010 only and hence do not help to resolve the controversy in this bunch of cases. The second proviso to R.59(iii) of the Rules referable to the amount received out of any scheme implemented by a society shall be construed in the context explained above. The employee in other words is entitled to the higher amount if he has opted in terms of S.4(5) of the Central Act even if a lesser amount is due under S.4(2) thereof. The decision in Nedupuzha’s case (supra) to the extent that excess amount if any received by the employer under the policy would inure to the employee is affirmed. The said decision does not lay down the proposition that the entitlement of the employee is confined to the amount received under the policy even it fit falls short of the statutory limit. Circular No.5/2016 and similar circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies stem out of a misconception of the statutory provisions and are quashed to this extent. The reference is answered accordingly and the Writ Petitions shall be posted before the single Judge as per roster for disposal dependent on individual facts. The principle of the above mentioned judgment shall apply even to the question with regard to the entitlement **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **16** of higher amount as the employer had opted under Section 4(5) of the Central Act and the due amount is less under Section 4(2) thereof, thus, the objection of respondents regarding enhanced entitlement is hereby rejected. In view of what has been noticed above, writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to pay the balance payment of gratuity to the petitioners along with the interest @ 9% from the date the amount is due. Let the exercise be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **SD/-** sab **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **17** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33169/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 2.11.2017 IN W.P(C) NO.19892/2009 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.5.2018 BY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONERS 1 TO 33 DATED 27.7.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF 34TH PETITION DATED 27.7.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **18** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30677/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02/11/2017 IN WP(C) NO.19892/2009.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/05/2018 BY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27/07/2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 08/08/2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF 3RD PETITIONER DATED 20/08/2018.** **WP(C).No.33169 OF 2018(U) and conctd cases.** **19** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32176/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 18.09.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO. 19892/2009 OF THE FULL BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT REPORTED IN 2017(4) KLT 276(FB)** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 02.11.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO. 19892/2009.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 11.05.2018 BY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER'S 1 TO 20 DT. 15.10.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT BANK.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 22.6.2018 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3 A COPY OF DEED OF VARIATION DATED 4.4.2012 EXHIBIT R3 B COPY OF CLAIM REQUEST MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT R3 C COPY OF CLAIM REQUEST MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK IN RESPECT OF THE 9TH PETITIONER**