IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8630 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE.P.MICHAEL,PUTHIAPARAMBIL, KONIPADU.PO, MELUKAVUMATTOM, PALAI. RETIRED CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, MELUKAVU SERVICE CO.OP BANK LTD,MELUKAVUMATTOM-682652. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MELUKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3183,MELUKAVUMATTOM-686652, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, P&GS UNIT, "JEEVAN JYOTHI",STAR JUNCTION,M.C.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001,REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC FOR R2 SRI.P.V.BABY SC FOR R1 SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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