IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 25391 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1. P.KUNHIKRISHNAN ,S/O.(LATE)P.KUNHAMBU NAIR,CHEMMATTAMVAYAL, PO BALLA,KANHANGAD,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. RTD. BRANCH MANAGER, VIDHYANAGAR BRANCH. 2. H.SHIVANANDA,S/O.LATE NAMAKRISHNA.H, "RAM NIVAS",KANHANGAD PO,KASARAGOD DISTRICT, RTD.ATTENDER, HIGHER GRADE, BANK ROAD BRANCH. 3. M.GOVINDA BHAT,S/O.M.NARAYANA BHAT, "ASHIRWAD"ARJAL,ADKATHBAIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, RETD.BRANCH MANAGER, THALANGUR BRANCH. 4. DONALD VIDHYADHAR KUNDER, S/O.LATE H.P.KUNDER,PARAKATTA,KUDULU VILLAGE, PO RAMADAS NAGAR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT, RETD.BRANCH MANAGER, BANK ROAD BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KASARAGOD CO-OPERATIVE TOWN BANK LTD.NO.970,P.B.NO.10, PANDURANGA TEMPLE ROAD, KASARAGOD 671 121,REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANGER. ADDL.R4. THE MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PENSION & GROUP SCHEME DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE DIVISION. (ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.29.10.2010 IN I.A.NO.14397 OF 2010) ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R3 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R3 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No..25391/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.25/99 DTD.22.6.99 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DTD.17.11.09. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DTD.17.1.2010. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PROVIDING ENTIRE GRATUITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DTD.1.3.2010. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPN. SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DTD.15.7.2010. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPN.SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DTD. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE FOURTH PETITIONER DTD.2.8.2010. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPN. SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE THIRD PETITIONER DTD.2.8.2010. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.7.6.2010 IN WPC NO.8921/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION TO THIS RESPONDENT DTD.8.1.2010. EXT.R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION TO THIS RESPONDENT DTD.31.5.2010. EXT.R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.8.1.2009 FROM THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.7.1.2010 FROM THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2010 (No.15/2010) EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD,12,1,2006. EXT.R4(b) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.6.4.2010. EXT.R4(c) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.17.5.2010. WPC No..25391/2010 EXT.R4(d) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.17.5.2010. EXT.R4(e) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF COST & BENEFIT SCHEDULE PERTAINING TO THE POLICY ISSUED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE CSS/ K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.25391 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are retired employees of the third respondent bank. They have retired on various dates in 2009 and 2010. According to the petitioners, on the basis of the length of the service put in by each one of them, they are entitled to be paid gratuity for an amount in excess of Rs.3,50,000/-. However, they complain that they have been paid only a fixed gratuity amount of Rs.3,50,000/- each. According to them, they are entitled to get the full gratuity calculated on the basis of the length of the service put in by each one of them. It is alleged that the ceiling limit for gratuity has been fixed by a Circular No.22/99 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies which according to the petitioners is unsustainable. They also rely on the decision in Retnavalli v Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005(3) KLT 320). It is the further case of the petitioners that various other persons similarly situated have been paid gratuity WPC No.25391 of 2010 2 computed on the basis of the length of service put in by each one of them. Therefore, according to them, they are entitled to amounts in excess of the ceiling limit. 2. The learned counsel for the third respondent has pressed into service the judgment dated 30.5.2011 of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.980 of 2010 to refute the claim of the petitioners. In paragraph-6 of the said judgment, it has been held as follows:- “It is seen that Group Gratuity Policies taken by the appellant Banks with the LIC limited the gratuity liability to each of the employee including the respondents at the maximum amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs provided under Section 4(3) of the Act. Admittedly, the LIC has collected premium from the appellants for the maximum amount of gratuity payable under the statute to each of the employee. We do not know on what basis the respondents can claim gratuity in excess of statutory limit, which is covered in the Policies taken by the appellant Banks. As already held above, benefit of the employees is limited to the gratuity amount receivable under the Policy, and when it is limited to the statutory amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs, the LIC passes on only the said amount to the appellants, which in turn should go to the employees. The respondents' case is based on Circular No.25/99, which also does not say that the appellants have any liability over the statutory limit of Rs.3.5 lakhs.” WPC No.25391 of 2010 3 3. The additional fourth respondent who has been subsequently impleaded has also filed a counter affidavit. According to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the amount of gratuity due and payable to each one of the petitioners has been paid as evidenced by Exts.R4(b), R4 (c) and R4(d) respectively. Similar payment has been made to the first petitioner also, it is asserted. According to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the amount paid has been calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Since the bank has limited the maximum amount payable to Rs.3,50,000/- in the policy and has been paying premium only on the basis of the said ceiling limit, no amount in excess of the said ceiling limit has been paid by the Life Insurance Corporation of India to the bank or its employees. It is pointed out that, it is only in cases where the group insurance policy stipulates payment of a higher amount, it has been held by this Court that payment of the excess amount should also be made to the employee himself. Since the entire amount has been paid to the petitioners, it is contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any of WPC No.25391 of 2010 4 the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. 4. It is clear from Exts.R4(b), R4(c) and R4(d) that petitioners 2,3 and 4 have been disbursed gratuity calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Ext.P3 produced by the petitioners show that the first petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as gratuity. Therefore, it is clear from the records produced that all the petitioners have been paid gratuity computed in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Ext.R4(e) is the copy of a Cost and Benefit Schedule that is furnished by the Life Insurance Corporation of India to the bank every year. The schedule shows the amounts of gratuity actually paid to each of the petitioners as well as the other employees of the bank. Ext.R4(e) also shows the limit with respect to which the premium has been computed and paid by the bank. Ext.R4(e) shows that the gratuity amount in respect of the third respondent bank is limited to Rs.3,50,000/- as contended. Since the bank has not received any amount in excess of Rs.3,50,000/- and has not derived any benefit out of the group insurance policy, WPC No.25391 of 2010 5 there is no justification for the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to any amount in excess of the ceiling limit of Rs.3,50,000/-. The petitioners are entitled only to the maximum amount of gratuity that is due and payable to them in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Since the amounts computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act have already been paid, the claim put forward in the writ petition is without any justification. In view of the above, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/