Allowed

Thomas Sebastian v. the Thodupuzha Co-Operative Agricultural

Kerala HC3 Dec 2012WP(C)/18475/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that gratuity payable to retired employees of co-operative societies cannot be restricted to statutory limits when a Group Gratuity Scheme with LIC is in place. The petitioner was directed to receive the full amount remitted by LIC with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to disburse the balance gratuity amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of receipt of the policy amount.

Thomas Sebastian Vs the Thodupuzha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/12TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 18475 of 2010 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THOMAS SEBASTIAN, KAITHAPARAMBIL, KALAYANTHANI P.O, THODUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE THODUPUZHA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED NO.4388, PB NO.13, THODUPUZHA, PIN- 685 584, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PENSION AND GROUP SCHEMES DEPARTMENT, 'JEEVAN JYOTHI', STAR JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM,PIN- 686 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶12

3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.

¶13

R1 BY BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY

¶14

SRI.R.KIRAN

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C)NO.18475/2010

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/4/2010 WRITTEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENCLOSING THE CHEQUE

¶22

P2 COPY OF THE LAST PAY CERTIFICATE DATED 25/5/2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶29

W.P.(C).No.18475 Of 2012 ---------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2012.

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.6,91,667/- remitted by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P1 towards the gratuity payable to the petitioner, for a declaration that the respondents cannot limit the gratuity payable to the petitioner to Rs.3,50,000/- and that he is entitled to the maximum amount payable under the Group Gratuity Scheme and for other reliefs.

¶32

The petitioner is a retired employee of the 1^st respondent bank. The petitioner was covered under the Employees Group Gratuity Life Insurance Scheme. As per the Scheme, the 2^nd respondent Corporation has issued a cheque for Rs.6,91,667/- to the 1^st respondent for payment of gratuity to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that however, the 1^st respondent has paid only Rs.3.5 Lakhs as gratuity to the petitioner. The payment is restricted to Rs.3.5 Lakhs on the ground that the said amount is fixed as the maximum gratuity

¶33

::2::

¶34

W.P.(C).No.18475 Of 2010

¶35

payable under Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The issue as to whether the limit under the Payment of Gratuity is applicable in cases where the society has entered into an agreement with the Life Insurance Corporation of India linked Payment of Gratuity with LIC's Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme was considered by this Court in the decisions reported in

¶36

Nedupuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v Rugmini (2011 (3) KLT 134) and Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service

¶37

Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005 (3) KLT 320). This Court held that the gratuity payable to retired employees or legal heirs of deceased employees of Co-operative Societies cannot be restricted to the maximum prescribed under Section 4(3) and Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and bye-laws. This Court held that the bank is only a trustee, which made arrangement with the LIC by taking the policy and making payment of premium to provide gratuity and other benefits to it's employees. All the benefits under the Policy are to the account of the employees and nothing is retained by the employer, which by making payment of the premium, discharges it's annual liability

¶38

::3::

¶39

W.P.(C).No.18475 Of 2010

¶40

for gratuity to the employees covered under the Scheme. In the circumstance, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. The petitioner is entitled to receive the balance gratuity amount retained by the 1^st respondent bank.

¶41

In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent bank to disburse the balance amount of gratuity due to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of receipt of the policy amount from the 2^nd respondent.

¶42

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶43

bkn/-

Thomas Sebastian v. the Thodupuzha Co-Operative Agricultural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Sebastian v. the Thodupuzha Co-Operative Agricultural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thilakan Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Bessy Babichan Vs Ernakulam District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Sobin Mathew Vs Regional Transport Authority, Kannur

M/S. Super Ply Bend Vs Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner

Pushpa Vs State of Kerala & Others

C.J.Joseph Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police