High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-10-13Writ petition allowed; balance gratuity to be p...

K. Vikraman Nair and Others v. The State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.16107 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. N. Ravindran
Judgment Date: 2011-10-13
Court Decision / Holding: Directs the third respondent bank to pay the balance amount of gratuity to the petitioners after giving credit for Rs.10,00,000 already paid, expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date the petitioners produce a certified copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; balance gratuity to be paid after credit for Rs.10,00,000; payment to be made within one month of certified copy.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. Vikraman Nair
K. Radhakrishnan Nair
S. Jayasree
C. Karunakaran Nair
P. Padmavathy Amma
Marykutty Varghese
Chandrika Kumari V.

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Co-operation Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
The Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Limited, Head Office, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023, represented by its General Manager
The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. Nandakumara Menon, Senior Advocate
• P. K. Manoj Kumar
• Hena Bahuleyan

Counsels for Respondents

• Anitha (Government Pleader) for R1 & R2
• K. G. Radhakrishnan, SC for R3
• S. Easwaran for R4

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners are former employees of the Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Limited who retired between 2010 and 2011. The bank had an arrangement with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) whereby gratuity was payable under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme in excess of the statutory minimum under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. After retirement, LIC paid substantial sums to the petitioners (varying by individual), but the bank paid only Rs. 10,00,000 to each petitioner. The petitioners filed representations and then a writ petition seeking payment of the balance due under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme. The court noted the letters from LIC showing entitlement figures for each petitioner and observed that the bank had not fulfilled these entitlements. It relied on earlier Kerala High Court decisions holding that when better terms exist for gratuity under a scheme, employees of cooperative societies are entitled to gratuity beyond the statutory minimum, notwithstanding circulars that may limit gratuity. The standing counsel for LIC conceded that each petitioner was entitled to more than Rs.10,00,000 and that the amounts had been paid to the bank, which did not dispute this. The court disposed of the petition with a direction to the bank to pay the balance gratuity after crediting Rs.10,00,000 already paid, expeditiously and in any event within one month of production of a certified copy of the judgment, thereby upholding the petitioners’ claims under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme.

Provisions of Law Cited

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme they are entitled to gratuity beyond the statutory minimum under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The bank and LIC paid varying sums only up to Rs.10,00,000 per person, despite higher entitlements computed by LIC as per Exts P1–P8. They rely on precedents of this Court which hold that co-operative employees are entitled to gratuity in excess of statutory minimum when better terms exist, despite circulars limiting gratuity. They seek a direction to pay the balance amount after credit for Rs.10,00,000 already paid.

Contentions of Respondents

LIC concedes that the petitioners are entitled to more than Rs.10,00,000 and that such amounts were paid to the bank; the bank’s counsel did not dispute this. The core dispute concerns ensuring payment of the balance due under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme, after accounting for the Rs.10,00,000 already disbursed. The respondents support payment of the balance as per the scheme and the cited decisions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Co operative Bank Ltd.	2005 (3) KLT 320	Positive	Court relied on the principle that where better terms for gratuity exist, employees are entitled to gratuity beyond the minimum statutory amount.
Nedupuzha Service - Co operative Bank Ltd. v. Rugmini	2011 (3) KLT 134	Positive	Division Bench followed the same view in support of higher gratuity payments under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K. Vikraman Nair and Others v. The State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933** **WP(C).No. 16107 of 2011(K)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-------------------------** **1. K.VIKRAMAN NAIR, KRISHNA SREE, T.C.7/821, KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 011.** **2. K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREE RAGAM, T.C.22/462(2) K.R.A.90, MANACADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. S.JAYASREE, T.C.27/1611, JYOTSNA, PATTOOR, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 035.** **4. C.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, PANANGODE BUILDING, VENJARAMOODU, VENJARAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **5. P.PADMAVATHY AMMA, DEEPA COTTAGE, GRA 524, GOUREESAPATTOM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **6. MARYKUTTY VARGHESE, KANAKAMPALLIL, KALLAMPALLY, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.** **7. CHANDRIKA KUMARI.V., 'SNEH', T.C.48/828(3) POONTHOPPU, KONCHIRAVILA, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.** **BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN.** **..2/-** **Kss** **..2....** ## **WPC.NO.16107/2011 K** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PIN 695 023.** **4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** - **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA R3 BY ADV. SRI. K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC** - **R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.16107/2011 K** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **P1: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&&GD/GGCA/US 77223/45328 DTD. 8/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK.** **P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&&GD/GGCA/US 77223/45328 DTD. 8/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK.** **P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&&GGS/GGCA/US 77223/45228 DTD. 25/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK.** **P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&&GS/GGCA/US 77223/45228 DTD. 9/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK.** **P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&&GS/GGCA/US 77223/45228 DTD. 28/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK.** **P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&&GS/GGCA/US 77223/45228 DTD. 28/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK.** **P7: COPY OF THE DECISION NO.20/2010/11 DECISION NO.38, DTD. 31/12/2010 OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK.** **P8: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK NO.24/2010-11 DECISION NO.16 DTD. 8/03/2011.** **P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK PRESIDENT.** **P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK PRESIDENT.** **P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 07/01/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK PRESIDENT.** **P12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 03/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK PRESIDENT.** **P13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 31/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK PRESIDENT.** **P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 03/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK PRESIDENT.** ## **P15: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 31/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK PRESIDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------W.P(C).No.16107 of 2011 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are former employees of the Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Limited, the third respondent in this writ petition. They retired from service on 31.12.2010, 28.2.2011, 30.11.2010, 31.1.2011, 31.3.2011, 28.2.2011 and 31.12.2010 respectively. The third respondent bank had entered into an arrangement with the Life Insurance Corporation of India whereby the petitioners were entitled to receive, upon retirement, gratuity in excess of the gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. After the petitioners retired from service, the third respondent received from the Life Insurance Corporation of India the sum of Rs.16,09,874/- being the amount payable to each of petitioners 1 and 2, Rs.15,25,606/- being the amount payable to each of petitioners 3 and 4, Rs.14,41,338/- being the amount payable to each of petitioners 5 and 6 and Rs.13,14,937/being the amount payable to the 7[th] petitioner under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme. The third respondent however paid **W.P(C).No.16107 of 2011** -:2:- over to each of the petitioners the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- only. The petitioners thereupon filed representations evidenced by Exts.P9 to P15 before the President of the third respondent society requesting for payment of the balance amount. They contended that under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme they are entitled to receive the balance amount. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to pay the balance amount under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme to the petitioners. 2. It is evident from Exts.P1 to P5 letters sent by the Life Insurance Corporation of India to the General Manager of the third respondent bank that under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme petitioners 1 and 2 were entitled to receive the sum of Rs.16,09,874/- each, petitioners 3 and 4 were entitled to receive the sum of Rs.15,25,606/- each, petitioners 5 and 6 were entitled to receive the sum of Rs.14,41,338/- each and the seventh petitioner was entitled to receive the sum of Rs.13,14,937/-. The third respondent however, paid over to each of the petitioners the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- only. A learned single Judge of this Court **W.P(C).No.16107 of 2011** -:3:- ## _**-**_ has in _**Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Co operative Bank**_ _**Ltd**_ ., 2005 (3) KLT 320 held that where better terms for payment of gratuity exist, employees of co-operative societies are entitled to receive gratuity in excess of the minimum payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 notwithstanding the circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies limiting payment of gratuity to the statutory minimum. The same view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in _**Nedupuzha Service**_ _**- Co operative Bank Ltd. v. Rugmini**_ , 2011 (3) KLT 134. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Life Insurance Corporation of India submitted that each of the petitioners are entitled to payment in excess of the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under the Group Gratuity Insurance Scheme and the said amounts were paid over to the third respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent did not dispute the said submission. In such circumstances, as the issue raised by the petitioners is covered in their favour by the decisions of this Court, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to pay over to the petitioners the balance amount of gratuity after giving ## **W.P(C).No.16107 of 2011** ## -:4:- credit to the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- already made to them. Such payment shall be made expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the General Manager of the third respondent bank. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.** ## **ahg.** **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------W.P(C).No.16107 of 2011 ----------------------------** ## **JUDGMENT** **13[th] October, 2011**