K.P. Ramachandran and others v. Thrissur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd and Board of Management of the Thrissur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd and Life Insurance Corporation of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 18090 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 K.P.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.RAMANKUTTY MENON, RESIDING AT KOTTILUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.OORAKAM, THRISSUR - 680 562.** - **2 SASIDHARAN K., S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, PARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.PULLAZHY, THRISSUR - 680512.** - **3 V.V.SUMANGALA BHAI, KOONATH HOUSE, P.O.PATHIYARKULANGARA, THRISSUR - 680 552.** - **4 K.UMADEVI, KUNNAMBATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUMKARA, THRISSUR - 680 005.** ## **BY ADV P.V.BABY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.329, CIVIL LANE ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.329, CIVIL LANE ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.** - **3 THE MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE OF CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.** **BY ADVS.P.BENNY THOMAS, SC SAHASRANAMAN PB, SC** - **T.S.HARIKUMAR(K/782/1989), G.N.DEEPA(K/001665/1999) D.PREM KAMATH, TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) ABEL TOM BENNY, KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH JAIKRISHNAN.M.PISHARODI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO. 18090 OF 2022** **-2-** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are stated to have retired from the services of the 1[st] respondent - Society on various dates; but 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 have been withheld; and therefore, that they were constrained to approach the Society, through Exts.P1 to P4, which have, however, fallen on deaf ears, leading to Ext.P12 proceedings now being issued, saying that no further amounts are eligible to them. 3. The learned counsel asserts that Ext.P12, as also the earlier similar correspondences - namely Exts.P9 to P11, are without legs to stand ## **WP(C) NO. 18090 OF 2022** **-3-** on forensically and therefore, that they are liable to be set aside by this Court. 4. In refutation of the afore submissions, the learned Standing Counsel for the Society - Sri.Benny P.Thomas, submitted that the bye-laws 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.P.B.Sahasranaman – learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent, affirmed that his ## **WP(C) NO. 18090 OF 2022** **-4-** client has paid the entire amount 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 every employee of the Society is to be implicitly guided by the provisions relating to payment of gratuity, as stipulated in their byelaws. 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 Society has joined the Group Gratuity Scheme, which would ## **WP(C) NO. 18090 OF 2022** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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 bye-laws of the Society would permit a further payment or whether the limitations under the 'Gratuity Act' would apply. This has not been touched upon by the Society in any of their impugned orders, namely Exts.P9 to 12; 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 ## **WP(C) NO. 18090 OF 2022** **-6-** petitioners and consider Exts.P1 to P4, to take a decision in the light of the precedents which presently holds the field, thus leading to appropriate orders thereon. Resultantly, without entering into the merits of the dialectical contentions affirmatively at this stage, I allow this writ petition and set aside Exts.P9 to P12; with a consequential direction to the Society to hear the petitioners and consider their plea hinged on then 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. 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 **WP(C) NO. 18090 OF 2022** **-7-** within a period of two months thereafter. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv **WP(C) NO. 18090 OF 2022** **-8-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18090/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 11/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 16/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 09/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED NIL SHOWING THE GRATUITY DUE AS PER RULE 59 OF THE KERALA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED NIL SHOWING THE GRATUITY DUE AS PER RULE 59 OF THE KERALA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPLY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED NIL SHOWING THE GRATUITY DUE AS PER RULE 59 OF THE KERALA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ## **WP(C) NO. 18090 OF 2022** **-9-** - EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED NIL SHOWING THE GRATUITY DUE AS PER RULE 59 OF THE KERALA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26/3/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26/3/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26/3/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND RECEIVED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26/3/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND RECEIVED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER. ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** - EXHIBIT.R.3 (A) TRUE COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION NO.8 DATED 06-10-2018 OF THE EMPLOYER BANK INCREASING THE GRATUITY LIMIT FROM RS.10 LAKHS TO RS.20 LAKHS. **//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE**