High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-09-27Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set asi...

The Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd (presently part of Kerala State Co-operative Bank) v. V N Muraleedharan and others (Life Insurance Corporation of India and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Palakkad)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-09-27
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed; the impugned orders of the Controlling Authority are set aside; a consequential remand is directed to reconsider the claims with reference to the observations and contentions, with a time-bound limit of two months for completion.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; remanded for reconsideration within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd (presently part of Kerala State Co-Operative Bank)

Respondents

V N Muraleedharan
Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), Divisional Manager
Deputy Labour Commissioner Palakkad
A. Vijayakumaran
K.N. Ushadevi
K. Mallu
R. Mohanan
Division Manager, LIC

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Sasindran

Counsels for Respondents

• P. N. Mohanan Sahasranaman
• T. S. Harikumar
• Parvathy K.

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act directing payment of gratuity benefits to employees of the Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank (now part of the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank). The petitioners contend that the Bye-Laws/Regulations of the Society and the Bank’s Group Gratuity Scheme with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) govern gratuity payments and that the Controlling Authority erred by not considering these instruments; they argue the arrangement with LIC may provide a higher benefit and denying that arrangement would contravene the law. The respondents submit that the Controlling Authority acted in accordance with the principle declared in Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Viswanathamallan, 2022(4)KLT 495, which holds that when two gratuity options exist, the employee cannot be denied the more favorable one. The court notes that neither the Society’s Bye-Laws nor the LIC arrangement were properly considered and that the impugned orders were issued without adequate examination. It sets aside the orders and remands for fresh consideration, directing the authority to address the Bye-Laws, the LIC arrangement, and the legal framework, with a timely resolution not exceeding two months from the date of this judgment, to ensure a just, expeditious remedy for long-pending claims.

Provisions of Law Cited

Payment of Gratuity Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

When two gratuity options exist under different schemes, the employee is entitled to the more favorable term and cannot be denied the better benefit.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the Controlling Authority failed to consider the Society's Bye-Laws/Regulations and the Bank's Group Gratuity Scheme with LIC; the arrangement with LIC could provide a higher benefit, and a private agreement should not override statutory rights; the impugned orders should be set aside and the matter remanded with explicit consideration of Bye-Laws and LIC arrangements, as claims have remained pending for over a decade.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the Controlling Authority acted in line with the principle from Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Viswanathamallan, which holds that when two gratuity options exist, the employee cannot be denied the more favorable term; the LIC arrangement is a separate scheme, and eligibility is governed by law; the Authority has accorded some relief under LIC, but the legal framework must prevail; the orders should stand unless clearly contrary to statutory rights.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Viswanathamallan	2022(4)KLT 495	Positive	The court cites and applies the principle that when there are two gratuity options (statutory and employer arrangement), the employee is entitled to the more favorable benefit.

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 The Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd (presently part of Kerala State Co-operative Bank) v. V N Muraleedharan and others (Life Insurance Corporation of India and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Palakkad) 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 5TH ASWINA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 27361 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (PRESENTLY PART OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK) P.B.NO.21, HPO ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-IN-CHARGE. BY ADV M.SASINDRAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 V N MURALEEDHARAN AGED 66 YEARS RETD. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AYYANVEETTUCHALLA, NANNIYODE.P.O.-695 562, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 3 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER PALAKKAD (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY ADVS. P.N.MOHANAN SAHASRANAMAN PB T.S.HARIKUMAR(K/782/1989) SMT.PARVATHY.K. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).27541/2022, 27738/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 5TH ASWINA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 27541 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (PRESENTLY PART OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK) P.B.NO.21, HPO ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-IN-CHARGE. BY ADV M.SASINDRAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 A. VIJAYAKUMARAN, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.GOVINDANUNNI MENON, RETD. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER -IN - CHARGE, 'SAI RAM', MEPPARAMBA, PIRAYIRI - 678 004, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 3 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER PALAKKAD (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY ADVS. P.N.MOHANAN SAHASRANAMAN PB SMT.PARVATHY.K. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).27361/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 5TH ASWINA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 27738 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (PRESENTLY PART OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK), P.B. NO. 21, HPO ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE. BY ADV M.SASINDRAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 K.N.USHADEVI, AGED 64 YEARS W/O. LATE K.C. MADHAVA MENON, RETD. GENERAL MANAGER - IN - CHARGE, 'USHA NIVAS', CHITTOOR P.O - 678101, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682016. 3 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER PALAKKAD. (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD - 678001. BY ADVS. P.N.MOHANAN SAHASRANAMAN PB T.S.HARIKUMAR(K/782/1989) SMT.PARVATHY .K. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).27361/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 4 [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 5TH ASWINA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 28504 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (PRESENTLY PART OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK) P.B.NO.21, HPO ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-IN-CHARGE. BY ADV M.SASINDRAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 K.MALLU AGED 66 YEARS RETD. DRIVER, CHERUMKODE HOUSE, CHENTHAMARA NAGAR, THATHAMANGALAM. P.O. - 678 102, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 3 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER PALAKKAD (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY ADVS. P.N.MOHANAN SAHASRANAMAN PB T.S.HARIKUMAR(K/782/1989) SMT.PARVATHY K. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).27361/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 5 [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 5TH ASWINA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 28559 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, (PRESENTLY PART OF KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK) P.B.NO.21, HPO ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-IN-CHARGE. BY ADV M.SASINDRAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 R.MOHANAN AGED 66 YEARS, RETD. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RESIDING AT 5/11, VIDHYA NIVAS, GANDHI JUNCTION, ALATHUR - 678 541, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 3 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER PALAKKAD (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY ADVS. P.N.MOHANAN SAHASRANAMAN PB T.S.HARIKUMAR(K/782/1989) SMT.PARVATHY .K. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).27361/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 6 [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] ## **JUDGMENT** The orders impugned in these writ petitions – which have been heard together taking note of the analogous factual circumstances presented therein – have been issued by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, ordering certain benefits to the 1[st] respondent in all these matters, who are employees of the petitioner – Society. 2. Sri.M.Sasindran – learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner – Society in all these cases, submits that the impugned order of the Controlling Authority is in error because it had not even considered the ByeLaws/Regulations of his client, which specify that the benefits of gratuity can be paid to their employees only as per the Payment of [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Gratuity Act. He submitted that since the Controlling Authority omitted to consider this vital aspect, the orders impugned are deserving to be set aside. 3. Sri.P.N.Mohanan – learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent in all these cases, submitted that the Controlling Authority has only acted as per the holdings of this Court in _**Kerala State Co-operative**_ _**Bank Ltd. v. Viswanathamallan**_ [2022(4)KLT 495], which as declared the law indubitably that when there are two choices available, one under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act; and the other, under an arrangement with the employer, and if either of them offers better terms, the employee cannot be denied it. He, therefore, argued that the impugned orders are without error. 4. In reply, Sri.M.Sasindran – learned [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] 8 counsel for the petitioner - Society, submitted that the afore arguments of the party respondents are untenable because his client had entered into an agreement with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) under a Group Gratuity Scheme and that the said Authority has already acceded to the claim in favour of the party respondents. He argued that, therefore, the Controlling Authority could not have issued the impugned orders, which impose a higher liability than what is legally permissible on his client. 5. However, the afore argument of Sri.M.Sasindran was countered by Sri.P.N.Mohanan, arguing that the arrangement between the Society and the LIC is only between them and that the eligibility of an employee is guided by the law and not by such arrangements. [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 6. I must say that I find some force in the submissions of both sides and it is evident that none of the afore recorded aspects have been considered by the Controlling Authority, when the impugned orders were issued. 7. The question whether the Bye- Laws/Regulations of the Society adopt the Payment of Gratuity Act; and whether the arrangement of the Society with the LIC would deny higher benefits of the employees, are not issues that are reflected in the orders impugned before this Court. In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders of the Controlling Authority; with a consequential direction to it to reconsider the claims of the party respondents herein, with specific reference to the afore [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** observations and contentions; thus culminating in appropriate orders 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. I make it clear that I have fixed the time short, because the claims have been pending for more than a decade now; and I record that this Court expects the Controlling Authority to abide by the said time line, for which purpose, I also record the submissions of the both sides that they will co-operate implicitly. Sd/- ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** SAS 11 [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27541/2022** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED| |---|---| ||15.05.2012.| |Exhibit P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, G.C.NO.7/2019| ||INSTITUTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE| ||CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF| ||GRATUITY ACT.| |Exhibit P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK BEFORE THE| ||CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE GRATUITY ACT.| |Exhibit P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-12-2019 IN| ||G.C.NO.7/2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR| ||COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD.| |Exhibit P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&G/GGCA/2010-11| ||DATED 07-03-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||BANK TO THE LIC.| |Exhibit P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.16, DATED| ||06-01-2011.| |Exhibit P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE| ||DESPATCH REGISTER WHICH WOULD SHOW SENDING OF| ||THE EXT.P5 TO THE LIC ON 9.3.2011.| |Exhibit P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.| ||18791 OF 2020 DATED 29-09-2020.| |Exhibit P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN| ||APPEAL NO.12 OF 2021 FILED BEFORE THE| ||REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,| ||ERNAKULAM.| |Exhibit P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 12 OF| ||2021 DATED 30-06-2022 THE REGIONAL JOINT| ||LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.| 12 [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27738/2022** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 18.12.2012. - Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, G.C. NO. 8/2019 INSTITUTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT GRATUITY ACT. - Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE GRATUITY ACT. - Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY DATED 30.12.2019. - Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THE LIC. - Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.16, DATED 6.1.2011. - Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE REGISTER WHICH WOULD SHOW SENDING OF THE EXHIBIT P5 TO THE LIC ON 9.3.2011. - Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 17752 OF 2020 DATED 20.01.2021. - Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2021 FILED BEFORE THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. - Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2021 DATED 30.06.2022. [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] 13 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28504/2022** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 08.11.2012. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, G.C.NO. 9/2019 INSTITUTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT GRATUITY ACT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE GRATUITY ACT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 IN G.C.NO.09/2019. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.03.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THE LIC. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 16, DATED 06.01.2011. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE DESPATCH REGISTER WHICH WOULD SHOW SENDING OF THE EXHIBIT P5 TO THE LIC ON 09.03.2011. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.18757 OF 2020 DATED 29-09-2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN APPEAL NO.14 OF 2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2021 DATED 30-06-2022 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C)NO. 27361 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. 14 [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28559/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 6.12.2012. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, G.C.NO. 1/2019 INSTITUTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT GRATUITY ACT. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE GRATUITY ACT. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 IN G.C.NO. 10/2019. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THE LIC. Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 16, DATED 6.1.2011. Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE DESPATCH REGISTER WHICH WOULD SHOW SENDING OF THE EXHIBIT P5 TO THE LIC ON 9.3.2011. Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.18833 OF 2020 DATED 29-09-2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN APPEAL NO.11 OF 2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2021 DATED 30-06-2022 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 24.08.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO. 27361 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. 15 [WP(C) Nos.27361/2022, 27541/2022, 27738/2022, 28504/2022, 28559/2022] ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27361/2022** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 18.12.2012. - Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, G.C.NO.6/2019 INSTITUTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT. - Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE GRATUITY ACT. - Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-12-2019 IN G.C.NO.6/2019. - Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07-03-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THE LIC. - Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 16, DATED 6.1.2011. - Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE DESPATCH REGISTER WHICH WOULD SHOW SENDING OF THE EXHIBIT P5 TO THE LIC ON 9.3.2011. - Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.18838/2020 DATED 29-09-2020. - Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN APPEAL NO.11 OF 2021 FILED BEFORE THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. - Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2021 DATED 30-06-2022.