IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2140 of 2005(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------------- K.K.NIRMALA, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 567. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- KARYAVATTOM SERVICE CO-OEPRATIVE BANK LTD., NO.F.793, P.O.KARYAVATTOM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 2140/2005 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/12/2004 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 10/1/2005 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER BEARING NO. GO(P) NO. 220/2005/CO-OP DT. 23/08/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1A. COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 8/2/2005 BY THE RESPONDENT. True copy tga Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.2140 of 2005 ================================== Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner was employed with the respondent. Going by the counter affidavit of the respondent, it had only eight employees and therefore not an establishment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, what the petitioner could aspire was the benefit in terms of Rule 59 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, 1969, for payment of gratuity. The petitioner claims a specific amount and seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus for disbursement of that amount with interest at the rate claimed. Contradicting the claim, the respondent has filed counter affidavit contending, apart from the question of coverage, that there was mistaken overpayment by calculating the entire salary as gratuity by reckoning HRA and other inadmissible components to derive the gratuity WPC2140/2005 -:2:- amount. 2. Having regard to the disputes on the question of inclusion, it may not be appropriate for this Court to enter on an adjudication on that issue. Since this writ petition is pending for the last couple of years, petitioner is relegated to move the Secretary of the respondent by placing a statement of accounts on the basis of which the Secretary will afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and if necessary, place the matter before the Board of the Society and take a decision finally on the grievance of the petitioner. If such decision is against the interest of the petitioner, reasons shall also be stated because, the petitioner would at least be able to initiate appropriate proceedings in terms of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 for resolution of disputes, if any surviving. The decision, as aforesaid, shall be rendered by the respondent WPC2140/2005 -:3:- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation or a copy of this judgment, whichever is later. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.