IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30742 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.N.RAJU, PATTARMADOM, KUMARAKOM SOUTH, KOTTAYAM. 2. JACOB.V.J., VAZHAPATHRA, KUMARAKOM SOUTH, KOTTAYAM. 3. P.K.SOMAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL, KUMARAKOM EAST, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUMARAKOM REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PRESIDENT, KUMARAKOM REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 30742/09. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 26-3-2009. EXT.P2 REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE R2. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. EXT.P4 REPRESENTATION BY 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. EXT.P6 REPRESENTATION BY 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 30742 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are retired employees of the 1st respondent-Co- operative Bank. They retired from service on 31-3-2009. The 1st respondent-Bank had taken a group gratuity policy with the LIC for payment of gratuity to the employees. As per that policy, the retired employees were entitled to the maturity value of the policy in accordance with the policy. The LIC had forwarded cheques for Rs. 4,68,166/-, Rs. 4,11,842/- and Rs. 4,60,064/- as gratuity due to the three petitioners respectively in accordance with the master policy. However, out of the same, the 1st respondent-bank has paid to the petitioners only Rs. 3,50,000/- each, on the ground that the maximum amount of gratuity payable to retired employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act is only Rs. 3,50,000/-. According to the petitioners, when the bank takes a group gratuity policy with the LIC, the bank is bound to pay the maturity value of the policy to each employee regardless of the maximum gratuity prescribed by the Payment of Gratuity Act. They rely on the decision of this Court in Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2005 (3) KLT 320, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1250/2004. 2. With the help of a counter affidavit, counsel for the 1st respondent disputes the contentions of the petitioners on the ground that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Beed District Central Co-operative Bank v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006(8) SCC 514, better terms of gratuity is available only when there is a contract to that effect between the employer and employee, which is absent in this case and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any better terms of gratuity. 3. I have considered the contentions of the parties. 4. The decision relied upon by the 1st respondent is not W.P.C. No. 30742/2009 -: 2 :- applicable to this case, since it is not by virtue of better terms of gratuity agreed to by the 1st respondent that the petitioners have become entitled to the maturity value of the policy. It is because the employees are beneficiaries of the policy and the 1st respondent receives the maturity value of the polity in trust for the employees. The Bank does not have any right to retain any part of the maturity value of the policy since the employees for whose benefit the policy was taken is entitled to receive the full amount as per the policy. This question has been discussed in detail in the decision in Retnavalli's case and decided in favour of the employees. Therefore, following Retnavalli' case, I allow this writ petition and direct the 1st respondent to disburse the amounts received from the LIC as maturity value of the policy to be given to the petitioners as evidenced by Ext. P7 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/