RP.No.1213 of 2015 in W.A.No.1992 of 2014 (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938** ## **RP.No. 1213 of 2015 ()** **------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.1992/2014 DATED 01-10-2015.** **.......** ## **PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/1ST, 2ND RESPONDENTS:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SASTHA BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, SASTHA BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR SC, ADV. SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH, SC.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4:** - **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. DR.T. SURENDRAN, SCIENTIST & HEAD, TREE PHYSIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **2. DR.K. JAYARAMAN, SCIENTIST-G, PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **3. DR.E.P. INDIRA, SCIENTIST-F, PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **4. DR.P. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, SCIENTIST-F, HEAD, GIS & REMOTE SENSING, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** ## **RP.No. 1213 of 2015** ## **5. DR.N. SASIDHARAN,** - **SCIENTIST-G, PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, FE & BC DIVISION, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **6. DR.THOMAS P.THOMAS, SCIENTIST-F, HEAD, SOIL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **7. DR.K.V. BHAT, SCIENTIST-F, RESEARCH MONITORING & EVALUATION UNIT, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **8. DR.K. SWARUPANANDAN, SCIENTIST-F, RESEARCH CO-ORDINATOR, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **9. DR.K.K. SEETHALAKSHMI, SCIENTIST-F, PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT DIVISION, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **10. DR.V.V. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, SCIENTIST-F, FOREST HEALTH DIVISION, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **11. DR.T.K. DHAMODARAN, SCIENTIST-F, HEAD, WOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **12. DR.P. RUGMINI, SCIENTIST-G, HEAD, FOREST STATISTICS DEPARTMENT, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **13. DR. S. SANKAR, SCIENTIST-G, PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, F & HD DIVISION, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** ## **14. DR.M. BALAGOPALAN, SCIENTIST-F, SOIL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** ## **RP.No. 1213 of 2015** ## **15. DR.U.N. NANDAKUMAR, SCIENTIST-F, HEAD, SILVICULTURE DEPARTMENT, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **16. DR.E.J. MARIA FLORENCE, SCIENTIST-F, HEAD, FOREST PATHOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **17. DR.R.C. PANDALAI, SCIENTIST-F, PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, EXTENSION & TRAINING, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **18. DR.K. MOHANADAS, SCIENTIST-F, HEAD, EXTENSION DEPARTMENT, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **19. DR.C.N. KRISHNANKUTTY, SCIENTIST-F, FOREST STATISTICS, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **20. DR.A.R. RAJAN, SCIENTIST-E, COORDINATOR, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI-680 653, THRISSUR.** **21. KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI - 680 653, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **22. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** **R1 TO R20 BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS. R21 BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM.** **R22 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE.** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2016, ALONG WITH RP NO.593 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **RP.No. 1213 of 2015** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER (P & GS) TO THE REGISTRAR, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE & P.V.ASHA, JJ.** ## **------------------------------------** - R.P.No.1213 of 2015 in W.A.No.1992 of 2014, R.P.No.1214 of 2015 in W.A.No.5 of 2015, R.P.No.593 of 2016 in W.A.No.21 of 2015, R.P.No.595 of 2016 in W.A.No.4 of 2015, - R.P.No.612 of 2016 in W.A.No.10 of 2015, R.P.No.621 of 2016 in W.A.No.7 of 2015 & R.P.No.776 of 2016 in W.A.No.32 of 2015 **-----------------------------------** Dated this the 30[th] day of September, 2016 ## **O R D E R** ## **Shaffique, J.** These review petitions have been filed seeking to review the judgment dated 01.10.2015 _inter alia_ contending that certain additional documents which were very much available during the relevant time could not be produced to substantiate the contentions raised by the review petitioners. 2. Reference is made to Annexure A produced in the cases to indicate that as per the terms of policy issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, there was a limit for payment of gratuity in terms with the Gratuity Act 1972. This aspect of the matter could not be brought to the notice of the Court, while the writ appeals were being heard. That apart, though the Division Bench while considering the writ appeals had referred to the judgments in _**Nedumpuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Rugmini [2011 (3) KLT 134]**_ and _**The Travancore Cements Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Ramachandran Nair [2014 (1) KLT**_ _**889]**_ and discussed the law laid down therein, the same was not R.P.No.1213 of 2015 in W.A.No.1992 of 2014 2 made applicable to the factual situation of the present case. 3. On a perusal of the judgment which is under review, it could be seen that in paragraph 55 this Court held as under : _“In the cases before us the payment of gratuity is regulated by Rule 14 as quoted above. Rule 14 does not contain any provision by which any ceiling limit to the payment of gratuity is provided, as provided under Section 4 (3) of 1972 Act. With regard to employees of Kerala Forest Research Institute there was an internal arrangement with LIC for payment of gratuity and from the materials on record it is proved that LIC has been making payment of gratuity to the employees without any ceiling limit as provided under Section 4(3). We have already noticed that payment of gratuity of Rs.15 lakhs to Dr C.Renuka and Dr George Mathew in W.P.(C) No.25884 of 2011 was paid in the year 2011 by the cheque issued by LIC. We thus conclude that Clause 14 of the rules and regulations framed by the Council provides for better terms of gratuity under the contract of service with the employer and payment of gratuity to writ petitioners was fully protected by Section 4(5) of the Act and the ceiling of Rs.10 lakhs as on date as provided under Section 4(3) was not applicable in payment of gratuity to the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge did not commit any error in directing payment of gratuity to the petitioners disregarding the ceiling as prescribed in Section 4(5) of the Act.”_ The case was decided on a particular set of facts by which this Court had arrived at a conclusion that Clause 14 of the rules and regulations laid by the Council provides for better terms of gratuity R.P.No.1213 of 2015 in W.A.No.1992 of 2014 3 under the contract of service and therefore, it is fully protected by Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act and therefore, the ceiling of 10₹ lakhs as on date as provided under Section 4(3) was not applicable. 4. The substantial contention raised in the review petitions is with reference to the policy that had been taken by the management wherein it is stated that it was an Act policy or the policy was intended to cover only that amount which is payable under the Gratuity Act. This aspect of the matter has been considered in the _**Nedumpuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.**_ 's case (supra) as well in the other judgment referred above. But in none of these judgments the intervening factor of existence of regulations had been noticed nor any such eventuality had been taken into consideration. Those judgments clearly proceeds on the basis that there is no contract to the contrary or contract which stipulates better terms as far as the employees are concerned. Those judgments therefore stand on a different footing and cannot be the basis for a decision in the present case. That apart, in Travancore Cements Case (supra) itself, the Division Bench had occasion to observe that in the absence of a contract or agreement to receive better terms of gratuity, the employee was not legally entitled to gratuity over and above the statutory limit of 3.5 lakhs.₹ The law is therefore, well settled, which had been applied to the 4 ## R.P.No.1213 of 2015 in W.A.No.1992 of 2014 facts of the present cases also. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners also points out that there is a doubt expressed with reference to the judgment in _**Nedumpuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.**_ (supra) and the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. Be that as it may, since all the respective contentions of the parties had been dealt with while disposing of the writ appeals itself, we don't think that the contentions now urged give rise to a situation where the judgment warrants a review. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in the review petitions and the same are dismissed. Sd/- ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE** AV