IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 19558 of 2010(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.ACHUTHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVI, AMMA, KURUMKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.VIYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (RETIRED CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, NEDUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OP.BANK). BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. NEDUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.555, NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER JEEVAN PRAKASH, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR. 4. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 19558/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17/06/2010. P2 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.25/1999 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REGISTRAR DATED 22/06/1999. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERTO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20/10/2009. P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 09/11/2009. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24/02/2010. P6 COPY OF THE MASTER POLICY NO.GGI-44323, THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. P7 COPY OF THE AMENDMENT OF SEC.4(3) OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT PUBLISHED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DATED 18/05/2010. P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17842 OF 2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03/03/2010. R1(B) COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010. R2(A) COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 12/06/2006. R2(B) COPY OF THE POLICY COPY NO.GGI-44322. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO. JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19558 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 28th October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the service of the first respondent society. After retirement the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs towards the gratuity payable under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Admittedly, the amount to which the petitioner is entitled in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 exceeds Rs.3.5 lakhs. Precisely the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.4,91,809/- . The question to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to get an amount which is in excess of Rs.3.5 lakhs in terms of the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This question was considered by this Court in the decision in Ratnavally v. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005 (3) KLT 320). Therefore, in the light of the said decision the first respondent cannot contend that the petitioner is not entitled to an amount over and above Rs.3.5 lakhs in terms of the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The next question is who should be made liable to pay the differential amount i.e., to effect payment over and above Rs.3.5 lakhs. I have decided a batch of writ petitions by a common judgment in W.P. (C)No.5351 of 2010 and connected cases whereby it was held that the WP(C).No.19558/2010 2 employer is liable to effect the payment. There is no dispute with respect to the entitlement of the petitioner for the amount under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In the said circumstances, there is no justification or reason for the first respondent to retain the balance amount. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to pay the balance amount i.e. Rs.1,41,809/- to the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the first respondent to initiate appropriate action, in accordance with law and also in accordance with the agreement executed between the first respondent society and the Life Insurance Corporation of India, in case the first respondent got a case that the Life Insurance Corporation is bound to effect repayment of the amount disbursed to the petitioner over and above the amount already released by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and disbursed to the petitioner. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS