K Sathyanathan and Others v. Chungathara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Board of Management of the Chungathara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Life Insurance Corporation of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 19499 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 K SATHYANATHAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. K. RAMAN, RESIDING AT KUDUMBATHIL, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679334.** - **2 C. SREEDHARAN, CHARAKKUMALIL HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679334.** - **3 K.A. JOSE, KAITHAMALA HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679334.** - **4 V.B. PADMINI, JYOTHIS HOUSE, PALUNDA, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679334.** - **5 JOSE JACOB, PUTHUSSERIYATH HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679334.** - **6 N.P. JANAKI, CHARAKKUMALIL HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679334.** - **7 KARTHIYAYINI, W/O. LATE P. BALAKRISHNAN, PALAMTHODI HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679334.** - **8 A.K.LEELA, W/O. LATE M.V.SASIDHARAN, MANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 6793334. BY ADVS.P.V.BABY A.N.SANTHOSH** **-2-** ## **WP(C) NO. 19499 OF 2022** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 CHUNGATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F1807, CHUNGATHARA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679334, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE CHUNGATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F-1807, CHUNGATHARA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673612, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.** - **3 THE MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, JEEVAN PRAKASH, 8TH FLOOR, HUSOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673001.** ## **BY ADV S.EASWARAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO. 19499 OF 2022** **-3-** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners say that while 1 to 6 among them have retired from the services of the 1[st] respondent – Bank; petitioners 7 and 8 are the wives and nominees of two other deceased employees of the said Bank. They allege that they have not been paid eligible gratuity in terms of the statutory Scheme. 2. Sri.P.V.Baby - learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, though certain portions of the gratuity entitled to his clients have been paid, the balance has been withheld; and therefore, that they were constrained to approach the Bank, through Exts.P1 to P8, which have, however, fallen on deaf ears, leading to Exts.P9 to P16 proceedings now being issued, saying that no further amounts are eligible to them. 3. The learned counsel asserts that Exts.P9 to P16 are without legs to stand on forensically and therefore, that they are liable to be set aside by this Court. ## **WP(C) NO. 19499 OF 2022** **-4-** 4. In refutation of the afore submissions, the learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the ByeLaws of his client contain specific stipulations regarding gratuity to its retiring employees. He added that, at the time when the petitioners retired, there was a ceiling of Rs.10 lakhs specified under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Gratuity Act', for short); and that this amount has been paid to each of the petitioners from out of the payments made to them by the 3[rd] respondent - Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), under a Group Gratuity Scheme. He argued that, therefore, the petitioners cannot now claim anything further than what has been paid to them. 5. Sri.S.Easwaran – learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent, affirmed that his client has paid the entire amounts due to the petitioners under the Group Gratuity Scheme; and thus pleaded that no further orders be issued against his client. 6. When I hear the learned counsel for the parties on the afore lines, it is indubitable that law has now been well settled that payment of gratuity to ## **WP(C) NO. 19499 OF 2022** **-5-** every employee of the Bank is to be implicitly guided by the provisions relating to payment of gratuity, as stipulated in their bye-laws. If the bye-laws have adopted the 'Gratuity Act', then obviously, the rigour of the said Statute will also apply. However, it must be borne in mind that in _**Chandrasekharan Nair G. and Others v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and Others** [2017 (4) KLT 276]_ , a learned Full Bench of this Court has declared the law affirmatively that if the Bank has joined the Group Gratuity Scheme, which would give a larger benefit to an employee than what is stipulated in their Bye-Laws, same would also be eligible to them. 7. In the case at hand, the undisputed facts would show that the LIC has paid the entire amount under the Group Gratuity Scheme to the credit of each of the petitioners and that this amount has been disbursed by the Bank, without withholding any amount from it. 8. The question, therefore, is whether the byelaws of the Society would permit a further payment or ## **WP(C) NO. 19499 OF 2022** **-6-** whether the limitations under the 'Gratuity Act' would apply. This has not been touched upon by the Bank in any of their impugned orders, namely Exts.P9 to P16; with them maintaining that all benefits, as eligible, have been paid. 9. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the competent Authority of the Bank must hear the petitioners and consider Exts.P1 to P8, to thus take a decision in the light of the precedents which presently holds the field, leading to appropriate orders thereon. Resultantly, without entering into the merits of the dialectical contentions affirmatively at this stage, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P9 to P16; with a consequential direction to the Bank to hear the petitioners and consider their plea hinged on their Bye-Laws and the 'Gratuity Act'; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ## **WP(C) NO. 19499 OF 2022** **-7-** Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise, the petitioners are found eligible to be paid any further amount than what has been already disbursed to them, such action shall be completed within a period of two months thereafter. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv ## **WP(C) NO. 19499 OF 2022** **-8-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19499/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/1/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER TOT HE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/4/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE ABOVE EFFECT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/4/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE ABOVE EFFECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. **-9-** ## **WP(C) NO. 19499 OF 2022** |EXHIBIT P11|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| |---|---| ||12/4/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE| ||OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE ABOVE| ||EFFECT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P12|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||12/4/2022 ISSUED THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE OF| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE ABOVE EFFECT| ||TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P13|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||12/4/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE| ||OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE ABOVE| ||EFFECT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P14|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||12/4/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE| ||OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE ABOVE| ||EFFECT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P15|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||12/4/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE| ||OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE ABOVE| ||EFFECT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P16|A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||12/4/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE| ||OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE ABOVE| ||EFFECT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER.| ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE**