IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 544 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.861/2011 Dated 29/06/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1&2 IN W.A. --------------------------------- 1. K.V.OONNOONNY, S/O.VARGHESE THOMAS, KUMBAZHASSERIL, PEUMPETTY P.O., MALLAPPALLY (MANAGER RETIRED), PERUMPETTY BRANCH OF THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO.3260, PERUMPETTY). 2. R.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, KOLAMMAKKAL HOUSE, PADIMON P.O., MALLAPPALLY (MANAGER (RETIRED) PERUMPETTY BRANCH OF THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO. 3260, PERUMPETTY). BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SMT.V.AJITHA SMT.K.RAJANI RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IN W.A.: --------------- 1. THE THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO.3260, H.O.ERAVIPEROOR, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER - 689541. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETRY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, STAR JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-686001. ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER FOR R2 TO R4 ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN FOR R5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH R.P. NO.545/2011 ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (R.P. 544/2011) ANNEXURE 1: TRUE OCPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.980/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES DT.30.5.2011. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.544 of 2011 in W.A. No.861 of 2011 & R.P. No.545 of 2011 in W.A. No.859 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. These connected Review Petitions are filed to review common judgment rendered declaring eligibility for gratuity for the employees of various Co-operative Societies which are covered by Group Gratuity Scheme of the LIC. This court held that full maturity amount of the Insurance Policy is payable to the employee irrespective of whether it is in excess of the statutory limit or not. In all cases what was noticed is that the LIC had taken policy for each and every employee to ensure payment of gratuity upto the maximum statutory limit payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act. All the review petitioners have admittedly got Rs.3.5 lakhs which is the amount received by the Society under the policy taken for each of the review petitioners and the amount happens to be the maximum payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act at that time. However, petitioners have come forward R.P.544&545/11 2 with these Review Petitions stating that under the first proviso to Rule 59 they are entitled to gratuity upto 15 months' salary which is the maximum provided therein. 2. After hearing counsel for the review petitioners and on going through the statutory provision, we are unable to accept the contention that petitioners are entitled to 15 months' salary towards gratuity which is not an entitlement under the Rule but is the limit upto which gratuity can be paid to an employee. The second proviso to Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules which overrides the first proviso states that the amount of gratuity payable shall not exceed the amount which an employee is eligible under the Payment of Gratuity Act or under the Co-operative Societies Act or Rules whichever is applicable irrespective of the amount received out of any scheme chosen or implemented by a Society for the purpose. Admittedly the contract of employment the review petitioners have with their employer does not provide for any special terms for gratuity. Therefore, the employer took Group Gratuity Insurance Policy to provide for maximum gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act to all the employees. R.P.544&545/11 3 Admittedly the review petitioners have got the full maturity value of the policy taken by the employer which is same as the maximum amount of gratuity admissible under the statute. In our view, both the provisos to Rule 59 are only limitations on payment of gratuity and not the provision for payment of gratuity, which in the absence of any other arrangement has to be determined with reference to provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. The employer of the review petitioners arranged for payment of gratuity upto the maximum statutory limit by taking policy with LIC and, therefore, review petitioners are not entitled to anything more than the maturity amount of the policy which happens to be the maximum amount payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Review Petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms