IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8630 of 2009(W)
1. JOSE.P.MICHAEL,PUTHIAPARAMBIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MELUKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Respondent
2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :19/07/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.8630 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired as a Chief Accountant from the first
respondent society on 30.6.2008. According to him, he had a
continuous service of more than 29 years. He has filed this writ
petition complaining that he has been paid only an amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- as gratuity though he is entitled to receive an
amount of Rs.5,56,641/-, on the basis of his service. He had
requested for the disbursement of the balance amount of
gratuity due to him from the respondent.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second
respondent. According to the second respondent, as per the
master policy that has been entered into with the first respondent
society, the second respondent is bound to pay only a maximum
amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is submitted that the first
respondent has paid premium only for the said amount.
Therefore, he contended that the second respondent is not bound
to pay any further balance amount to the petitioner.
3. Advocate Sri.P.V.Baby, who appears for the first
W.P.(C) No.8630 OF 2009 2
respondent society submits that the second respondent has to
pay the balance amount that is claimed by the petitioner.
4. Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules,1969
provides for payment of gratuity to the employees of Co-
operative Societies. The bye-laws of the first respondent society
also has a corresponding provision in terms of Rule 59.
Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner is entitled to
be paid gratuity in accordance with law. The Group Insurance
Policy that is taken by the Society is for the convenience of the
Society itself. The terms of such policy between the Society and
the second respondent cannot be used to limit the amount of
gratuity that is payable to the petitioner in accordance with the
Rules. If the terms of the Group Insurance Policy does not make
provision for the payment of the amount of full gratuity due to an
employee, the balance amount that is due to the employee would
have been paid by the Society itself.
5. In Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative
Bank Ltd. (2005(3)KLT 320) as well as the decision of this court
in W.P(C) No.17842 of 2009, this court has held that employees
can claim the full amount of gratuity benefits due to them
W.P.(C) No.8630 OF 2009 3
calculated on the length of their service. On such calculation, if
the amount due is more than what is provided for under the
Group Insurance Scheme, it is certainly the liability of the
employer to pay the balance amount due to the employees. On
the basis of above decisions, I notice that a number of other
similarly placed employees have been directed to be paid the full
gratuity amount due to them as per the Rules. I do not find any
reason to deny the petitioner also the same benefit.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The first
respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner the balance
amount of gratuity due to him, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
Judge
cms