IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 30388 of 2009(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- E.K.JOSE, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE KOCHAPPU, INCHAMUDIKKARAN HOUSE, P.O.INCHAMUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PAZHUVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.126, P.O.PAZHUVIL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 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 ADVS.MR.C.HARIKUMAR, SMT.MOLLY KOSHY. R2 BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 30418 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30388/2009P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 22/09/2009. P2: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.25/1999 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REGISTRAR DTD. 22/06/1999. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 15/09/2009. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 13/10/2009. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 15/10/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NOS:30388 & 30418 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th March, 2010. JUDGMENT Both these writ petitions are disposed of together for the reason that the contentions raised therein are identical. 2. The petitioners are employees of the first respondent Co- operative Bank. They have retired from service on attaining superannuation after completing long periods of service. For effecting payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act, the first respondent-bank has constituted a group gratuity cash accumulation scheme with the help of the second respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India constituting a gratuity fund trust. The complaint of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that the entire amount of gratuity due to them calculated on the basis of fifteen days pay for every completed year of service has not been paid to them. Instead, their gratuity has been limited to an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court 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) 17842/2009. As per the dictum laid down in the decisions referred to above, the petitioners claim the full 30388 & 30418/2009 2 amount of gratuity due to them calculated on length of their service. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners are entitled to payment of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. On such calculation, if the amount due is more than what is provided for under the scheme, it is certainly the liability of the employer to pay the balance amount due to the employees. In the present cases the claim of the petitioner in W.P (C)30418/2009 is for an amount of Rs.4,85,406/- and the claim of the petitioner in W.P(C)30388/2009 is for an amount of Rs.5,63,062/-. Therefore in the present cases the petitioners are entitled to get the balance amount of gratuity payable to them, in excess of the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- already paid provided the calculation made by them is correct and admissible in accordance with the provisions of the Gratuity Act. In view of the above these writ petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent to compute the amount of gratuity due to the petitioners in these writ petitions in accordance with the provisions of the Gratuity Act and to pay to them the entire amount due as gratuity less the amount that has been already paid. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj 30388 & 30418/2009 3 30388 & 30418/2009 4 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: