K. Chandra Bai v. R. Naveen Kumar and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Con.Case(C).No.645 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 17614/2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17614/2019(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER:** **K. CHANDRA BAI AGED 58 YEARS W/O. A.S.DINESH, 9/852,PAVITHRAM HOUSE, KOCHI-682 002 BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**R. NAVEEN KUMAR**| |---|---| ||**S/O. R.G.PAI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PRESIDENT- THE**| ||**MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIK CO-**| ||**OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284, CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002**| |**2**|**R.KRISHNA PAI**| ||**AGED 84 YEARS**| ||**FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER**| ||**VICE PRESIDENT- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE**| ||**MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284,**| ||**CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002**| |**3**|**NAVEEN.R.PAI**| ||**AGED 58 YEARS**| ||**FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER**| ||**DIRECTOR- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY**| ||**SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284,**| ||**CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002**| |**4**|**V.MOHANA PAI**| ||**AGED 70 YEARS**| ||**FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER**| ||**DIRECTOR- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY**| ||**SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284,**| ||**CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002**| |**5**|**N.V NAVEENKUMAR**| ||**AGED 65 YEARS**| ||**FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER**| ||**DIRECTOR- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY**| ||**SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284,**| ||**CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002**| **Con.Case(C)645/2020 IN WP(C).17614/2019** **2** **6 CHANDRAMATHY.S.SHENOY AGED 26 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284, CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002** **7 SUNDARESH PRABHU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284, CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002** **8 JYOTHY.R.KAMATH AGED 52 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284, CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002** **9 POORNIMA.K.N AGED 52 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284, CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002** **10 R.REENA AGED 51 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284, CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002** ## **11 S.RAJEEV** **AGED 60 YEARS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTOR- THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE MATTANCHERRY SARVAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 3284, CHERLAI,COCHIN-682 002** **R1-11 BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM R1-11 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.PRAKASH** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Con.Case(C)645/2020 IN WP(C).17614/2019** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** This contempt case has been filed alleging that in spite of the directions in the judgment, dated 09/07/2019, the respondents have yet not quantified the applicable gratuity payable to the petitioner. 2. When this matter was taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the 1[st] respondent is now no more but that no new President has been elected for the Managing Committee of the Co- operative Bank. I, therefore, deem it appropriate that this contempt case be considered, notwithstanding the demise of the 1[st] respondent, since the other members of the Managing Committee are on record. 3. Shri.P.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing along with Shri.G.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Ext.R1(f) order now issued by the Managing **Con.Case(C)645/2020 IN WP(C).17614/2019** ## **4** Committee is an affront to the directions of this Court because nowhere therein is the amount of gratuity in favour of the petitioner been quantified. Shri.P.Chandrasekhar vehemently submitted that, going by the judgment of this Court in the writ petition, the respondents were directed to quantify the amounts of gratuity, adverting to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another [(2018) 5 SCC 430];**_ but that what has been done through R1(f) is to simply reject his client’s claims without any cogent reason being stated. He, therefore, prays that further proceedings in this contempt case be pursued against the respondent. 4. In response to the afore submissions, Shri.Manuel Kachiramattom, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the allegations now made by the petitioner is untenable because, even as per Ext.R1(f), it is clear that the petitioner’s eligible gratuity has been **Con.Case(C)645/2020 IN WP(C).17614/2019** ## **5** quantified to be Rs.12,29,873/- and further that this amount has been so quantified also by the LIC; and already disbursed to the petitioner. He submitted that the respondents have evaluated the contentions of the petitioner and have found that she is only entitled to the gratuity from the time she entered regular service and not for the period prior to that, when she claims that she had worked on daily wages. He further submitted that, as has been recorded in Ext.R1(f), the petitioner had daily wage employment only for two months from 05/11/1982 and for fifteen days from 29/12/1983 and therefore, that she is not entitled to have the same reckoned for the purpose of gratuity. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.R1(f) be granted approval by this Court and that this contempt case be closed. 5. I have considered the dialectical contentions of the parties, as voiced by their learned counsel as afore. **Con.Case(C)645/2020 IN WP(C).17614/2019** ## **6** 6. Even though Shri.P.Chandrasekhar vehemently affirms that Ext.R1(f) is in violation of the directions of this Court - the amount of gratuity not having been quantified therein - I notice, as rightly stated by Shri.Manuel Kachiramattom, that an amount of Rs.12,29,873/- has been found to be eligible to her and which amount the respondents say has been obtained from the LIC under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme also. 7. I am, therefore, of the view that it will not be justified for this Court to enter into the question as to whether she had served on daily wages prior to her date of regular appointment since this is severely contested by the respondents. It is needless to say that while this Court acts under contempt jurisdiction, it will not be permissible to enter into factual aspects in contest between the parties and that this will have to be resolved by the petitioner by initiating **Con.Case(C)645/2020 IN WP(C).17614/2019** ## **7** appropriate proceedings. In the afore circumstances, I close this contempt case; however, leaving full liberty to the petitioner to challenge Ext.R1(f), if she is so advised, for which purpose, all contentions are left open to be pursued appropriately. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** **MC/30.11.2020** **Con.Case(C)645/2020 IN WP(C).17614/2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **ANNEXURE-I** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2019 IN WPC NO.17614/2019 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **ANNEXURE-II TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 4.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE-IV CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2019 IN CONTEMPT CASE (C) 2361/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **ANNEXURE-V TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.12.2019 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE-VI TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.01.2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, MSC BANK LTD** - **ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION / ORDER DATED 16.5.2020 OF THE RESPONDENTS IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.5.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENTS** - **ANNEXURE R1(B) TURE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE MEETING REGARDING THE REGULARIZATION OF THE PETITIONER AND SIMILARLY PLACED PERSONS.** - **ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.1.2020 IN DHANSAI SAHU V. STATE OF CHATTISGARH & OTHERS [CIVIL APPEAL NO.564/2020], PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT** - **ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER POLICY AGREEMENT NO.45010 BETWEEN THE** **Con.Case(C)645/2020 IN WP(C).17614/2019** **9** **RESPONDENT BANK AND LIFE INSURANCE CORPORTION OF INDIA DATED 26.9.1979 ANNEXURE R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE LIC DATED 22.11.2019 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER'S GRATUITY CLAIM. ANNEXURE R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS** **MC** **(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE**