IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17842 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- C.V.RANGANATHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. C.R.VASUDEVAN, CHETHIKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.CHAZHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. KARAMUCK SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.16, KARAMUCK, THRISSUR, REP.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. ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17842 OF 2009 (A) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from the service of the 1st respondent as a Chief Accountant on 31/3/2008. On retirement, he was paid gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/-. In this writ petition, he claims that he is entitled to be paid Rs.4,73,729/- and that the Bank should be directed to pay the differential amount. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005(3) KLT 320). 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Bank. It is stated that the Bank had constituted a Group Gratuity Cash Accumulation Scheme with the LIC and that in terms of the said scheme, as on 31/3/2008, the petitioner's entitlement was to receive Rs.3,50,892.53/-. According to the Bank, the petitioner has been paid the amount due in full. 3. Irrespective of all these contentions, fact remains that an employee is entitled to get gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages for every completed year of service in terms of the WPC 17842/09 :2 : provisions of the Act. On such calculation, if the amount due is in excess of what is provided under the Scheme and paid, it is certainly the liability of the employer to pay the differential amount. Therefore, the fact that the scheme has been subscribed and that under the scheme the amount payable is less than what is legitimately due to an employee does not relieve the employer from making good the difference. 4. In this case, the claim made by the petitioner is for Rs.4,73,729/- which is calculated on the basis of the 15 days wages for every completed year of service and the calculation in this behalf is not under dispute. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to be paid the aforesaid amount and this shall be paid by the 1st respondent. 5. Of course, under the scheme if full amount is to be reimbursed to the Bank, it is always open to the 1st respondent to take up the matter with the LIC and get the amount reimbursed and this judgment will not stand in its way. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp