K. P. Ravendran Pillai v. Joint Registrar (General), Co-operative Societies, IDUKKI; Murickassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.; Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 14TH BHADRA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.P. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.PERUMAL PILLAI, 'RETIRED ATTENDER', THE MURICKASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.K.355, MURIKASSERY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN:685 604, RESIDING AT KANDANANICKAL HOUSE, MURICKASSERY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 604. BY ADV. SRI. S. JAYAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),**| |---|---| ||**CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,IDUKKI, PIN-685 603.**| |**2**|**THE MURICKASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK**| ||**LTD. NO.K.355,**| ||**MURIKASSERY P.O.,**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 604.**| |**3**|**LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (LIC)**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (P&GS) UNIT (G-603),**| ||**LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,**| ||**JEEVAN JYOTHI,II FLOOR, STAR JUNCTION,**| ||**KOTTAYAM, PIN:685 6001.**| |**R3**|**BY S.EASWARAN, SC, THE MURICKASSERY SERVICE**| ||**CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.**| |**R2**|**BY ADVS.SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN**| ||**SMT.SREEKALA T.K.**| |**OTHER PRESENT**<br>**:**|| |**R1**|**SMT C.S SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER.**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioner, who retired from service while working as Attender of the second respondent Service Co-operative Bank on 31.10.2016, on attaining the age of superannuation, after rendering a total service of 36 years, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent Joint Registrar (General) to see that the second respondent Co-operative Bank pays the balance gratuity of Rs.3,19,885/- to the petitioner along with interest from 01.11.2016 till the date of realisation. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he is entitled to receive Rs.13,19,885/- as gratuity amount on his retirement from service.** **2. The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that, in terms of the policy taken by the second respondent Bank with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the gratuity amount payable to him comes to Rs.13,19,885/-. Though the said amount has already been transferred by the Life Insurance Corporation to the second respondent Bank, as evident from Ext.P1 chellan dated 02.12.2016 (for** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -3- **Rs.12,74,815/-) and Ext.P1(a) communication dated 20.06.2017 (Rs.45,070/-), the second respondent Bank was not willing to pay the entire amount covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) to the petitioner and out of the said amount, only a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was paid as gratuity to the petitioner.** **3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the first respondent, the learned counsel for the second respondent Bank and also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent LIC.** **4. The issue raised in this writ petition regarding the entitlement of the employees of the Cooperative Societies covered by the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act to receive better terms under Section 4(5) of the said Act is now settled by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and others v. Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and others (2017 (4) KLT 276). Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said decision read thus;** **“5. The liability to pay gratuity does not get shifted to the insurer by the compulsory insurance and the effect is only that the** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -4- **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 S.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 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 whereunder 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** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -5- **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."** **6. The co-operative societies wherein the employees are engaged is Entry 32 of List II - State List and gratuity to which a claim is laid is Entry 24 of List III - Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Central Act which is the law made by the Parliament shall prevail over the law made by the Legislature of the State i.e. the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Rules. The inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States can be ironed out by calling in aid Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as follows:** **"254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.-- (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -6- **Parliament, which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of Clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State:** **Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -7- **to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State." (emphasis supplied)** **There is no case that the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Rules made by the Legislature of the State has received the assent of the President in order to prevail in the State under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. Every amendment to the State Act or the Rules has also to obtain the assent of the President which is absent in regard to the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Rules. The irresistible conclusion is that Section 4(5) of the Central Act which enables an employee to opt for a better terms of gratuity will prevail over the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Rules. Only the case of employees who are both covered under the Central Act and the Rules framed under the State Act is dealt with in this bunch of writ petitions since the Central Act does not apply to all establishments. Section 1(3)(b) of the Central Act is categoric that the same applies only to an establishment in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed during the preceding twelve months.** **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** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -8- **provide for the orderly development of the cooperative 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 KHC 805 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** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -9- **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 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 endeavor 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 134 (DB)] (iii) Mathew Korah v. Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-operative Bank [2013 (4) KLT 558]** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -10- **(iv) The Travancore Cements Employees' Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Ramachandran Nair [2014 (1) KLT 889 (DB)] and** **(v) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. K.P.Varughese [ILR 2015 (3) Kerala 420 (DB)].** **None of the above decisions dealt with the second proviso to Rule 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 Rule 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 Section 4(5) of the Central Act even if a lesser amount is due under Section 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 if it 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** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -11- **shall be posted before the single Judge as per roster for disposal dependent on individual facts.”** **5. In Chandrasekharan Nair's case (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held that, 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.** **6. In Chandrasekharan Nair's case (supra) the Full Bench held further that, the wording of the second** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -12- **proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Rules, of course, 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 whereunder 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. The Co-operative Societies wherein the employees are engaged is Entry 32 of List II-State List and gratuity to which a claim is laid is Entry 24 of List III-Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Central Act, which is the law made by the Parliament shall prevail over the law made by the Legislature of the State, i.e., the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Rules. The inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States can be ironed out by calling in aid Article 254 of the Constitution of India. There is** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -13- **no case that the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Rules made by the Legislature of the State has received the assent of the President in order to prevail in the State under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. Every amendment to the State Act or the Rules has also to obtain the assent of the President which is absent in regard to the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Rules. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that Section 4(5) of the Central Act, which enables an employee to opt for a better term of gratuity will prevail over the second proviso to Rule 59(iii) of the Rules.** **7. In Chandrasekharan Nair's case (supra), the Full Bench held that, the second proviso to Rule 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 Section 4(5) of the Central Act even if a lesser amount is due under Section 4(2) thereof. The Full Bench affirmed the decision of the Division Bench in Nedupuzha's case (2011 (3) KLT 134) to the extent that excess amount, if any, received by the employer** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -14- **under the policy would inure to the employee. The Full Bench noticed that, 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 if it falls short of the statutory limit, and that, 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 therefore quashed to that extent. The Full Bench has made it clear that, it has dealt with only the case of employees who are both covered under the Central Act and the Rules framed under the State Act, since the Central Act does not apply to all establishments.** **8. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair's case (supra), an employee of a Co-operative Society, who is covered both under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 framed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is entitled to the higher amount, if he has opted in terms of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, even if a lesser amount is due under Section 4(2) thereof. Therefore, the excess amount, if any, received by the** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -15- **employer Society under the policy would inure to the benefit of such an employee.** **9. The judgment of the Full Bench in Chandrasekharan Nair's case (supra) is affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.9446-9451/2018, after notice to the other side on admission.** **10. In W.A.No.524 of 2018 and connected cases dated 12.07.2018), a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the law laid down by the Full Bench in Chandrasekharan Nair's case (supra), held that, in view of the second proviso, with regard to societies to which the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable, in view of Section 4(5) thereof, if a better term of gratuity is available, the restriction under the first proviso does not apply. However, in cases of societies to which the Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable, since there is no provision in the Co-operative Societies Act or Rules akin to Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act, the maximum amount payable cannot in view of the first and second provisos, exceed fifteen months pay as stipulated in first proviso even if any special scheme has been opted by the society for payment of gratuity. The Division Bench held further that, when the eligibility** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -16- **of the respective employees, who are the writ petitioners, to claim gratuity is not under challenge, the employees need not be relegated for a further adjudication proceedings under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Division Bench has also held that, though non-payment gratuity was in view of the circulars in vogue and on a bonafide mis-interpretation of law, the omission could not be considered wilful or deliberate. However, since the amounts due to the employees were in the hands of the employers who were enjoying the benefit of the same they are bound to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said judgment read thus;** **“5. Sub Rule (iii) to Rule 59 of The Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules and the provisos thereto read as follows:-** **“(iii) when an employee who has put in at least 5 years satisfactory service is retired voluntarily from service or if he is permanently disabled while in service or if he dies while in service the society shall pay to him or to his legal heirs as the case may be a gratuity not exceeding half months pay for every completed year of service. Provided that in no case shall the gratuity exceed fifteen months pay.** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -17- **Provided further that the amount of gratuity payable shall not exceed the amount which an employee is eligible as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Central Act 39 of 1972) or under the Act and these Rules, whichever is applicable irrespective of the amount received out of any scheme chosen or implemented by a society for the purpose.”** **The first proviso puts a cap on the maximum amount of gratuity payable. The second proviso provides that, notwithstanding any scheme chosen by the Bank, as regards societies covered by the Gratuity Act, the maximum amount payable will be the eligible amount under the Gratuity Act; as regards societies covered by the Societies Act, the maximum amount payable shall be the maximum amount eligible under that Act. Interpreting the second proviso, the Full Bench held that, in cases where the Gratuity Act applies, in view of Section 4(5) thereof, the entire amount due under the Scheme shall be payable to the employee. Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act acknowledges the right of the employee to receive better terms of gratuity irrespective of the restrictions regarding the quantum fixed in Section 4 of that Act. Therefore, as held by the Full Bench, in view of the second proviso, with regard to societies to which the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable, in view of Section 4(5) thereof, if a better term of gratuity is available, the** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -18- **restriction under the first proviso does not apply. However, in cases of societies to which the Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable, - since there is no provision in the Co operative Societies Act or Rules akin to Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act, the maximum amount payable cannot in view of the first and second provisos, exceed fifteen months pay as stipulated in first proviso even if any special scheme has been opted by the society for payment of gratuity.** **6. To put it pithily, if the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable, in view of Section 4(5) of the said Act, the employee shall be entitled to the entire amounts due under the special terms of gratuity irrespective of any restriction regarding the quantum and in cases of societies not covered by the Central Act, the restriction under the first proviso applies irrespective of the availability of any scheme. 7. As regards the contention regarding adjudication, the only issue that has arisen for determination in these writ appeals is the right of the employees to receive the better terms of gratuity in terms of the LIC scheme. In none of these cases, the very eligibility of - the respective employees writ petitioners to claim gratuity is challenged. Under such circumstances, we do not think that they are to be relegated for a further adjudicatory proceeding under Section 7 of the Gratuity Act.** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -19- **8. As regards the liability to pay interest, as contended by the appellants, the non-payment was in view of the circulars in vogue and on a bonafide misinterpretation of the law. Though Section 7 and 8 of the Gratuity Act provide for - payment of interest for non payment of gratuity within the time stipulated, the omission could not be considered wilful or deliberate. Hence they need not be burdened with the liability for interest at the rates as prescribed under the Gratuity Act. However, the fact remains that the amounts due to the employees were in the hands of the appellants and they were enjoying the benefit of the same. They are bound to pay it to the employees with reasonable interest. We fix the rate of interest at 6% per annum, simple interest.”** **(Underline supplied)** **In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair's case (Supra) and also the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.524 of 2018, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent Joint Registrar to ensure that the petitioner is disbursed with a sum of Rs.3,19,885/- by the second respondent Co-operative Bank, towards the balance amount of gratuity payable in terms of the policy taken by the Bank with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, together with interest at the rate** **WP(C).No. 26956 of 2018** -20- **of 6% per annum from 02.12.2016 for Rs.2,74,815/covered by Ext.P1 and from 20.06.2017 for Rs.45,070/covered by Ext.P1(a) within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.** **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF GRATUITY INSURANCE FROM L.I.C. TRANSFER VOUCHER NO.5802 DATED 02.12.2016 ISSUED FROM THE CURRENT DEPOSIT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PAINAVU TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 20.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.2018 IN W.A.NO.524/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.5753/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** bpr