Allowed

The Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. M.C.Viswambaran

Kerala HC6 Jun 2017WA/1098/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Co-operative Bank appealed against a single judge order directing it to consider gratuity claims under an LIC policy. The High Court vacated the lower judgment, finding the writ petition was non-maintainable without LIC as a necessary party, and remitted the matter.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; judgment of single judge vacated; matter remitted to single judge with liberty to implead LIC.

The Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/16TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 1098 of 2017 IN WP(C).8132/2017

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8132/2017 DATED 10-03-2017

¶8

APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT :

¶9

THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, P.B. No.21, HEAD POST OFFICE ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS, RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 :

¶12

M.C.VISWAMBARAN, S/O.LATE KANDAPPAN, AGED 70 YEARS, RETIRED REGIONAL MANAGER, MUNDAMMADATHIL, CHERNGARA VALAPPIL, P.O. MEZHATHUR, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679 534.

¶13

M.N. SATHI DEVI, W/O.P.K. NAMBEESAN, AGED 70 YEARS, RETIRED REGIONAL MANAGER, SREE KRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679 513.

¶14

C. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, RETIRED REGINAL MANAGER, SARANGA, KOLATHUR POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679 338.

¶15

MOHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.ABDUL REHIMAN KUTTY, AGED 69 YEARS, RETIRED REGIONAL MANAFGER, VAIMBATHODY HOUSE, MARUTHUR, MELEPATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679 306.

¶16

M.RUKMINI, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 68 YEARS, RETIRED REGIONAL MANAGER,SINDHU VIHAR, THOTTAKKARA, OTTAPALAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679 102.

¶17

WA.No. 1098 of 2017 IN WP(C).8132/2017

¶18

K. BALAKRISHNAN,S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS, RETIRED CASHIER, USHUS, OLD COURT ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

¶19

R.CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED 68 YEARS, RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT, 17/267/3,

¶20

SAMETHA, MANAPULLYKAVU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 013.

¶21

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶22

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶23

R1 TO R6 BY SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

¶24

R8 & R9 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. MA. ASIF

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J. & Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

¶27

¶28

W.A. No. 1098 of 2017

¶29

- - - - Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2017

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶32

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Co-operative Bank and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, as well as learned Government Pleader representing respondents 8 and 9.

¶33

The appellant who was the 1^st respondent in the writ proceedings challenged the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8132 of 2017 dated 10.03.2017 by which they have been directed to consider the claim of the writ petitioners in respect of payment under the group gratuity policy of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'LIC') which policies were taken up to ensure payments of Gratuity as required under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶34

Without going into the merits of the case, we find a fundamental defect in the proceedings before this Court. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners were beneficiaries under a

¶35

WA No. 1098 of 2017

¶36

-:2:-

¶37

policy issued by the LIC, the premium thereof were paid by the Co-operative bank. The claim of the writ petitioners was that they were to receive as gratuity under those policies, sums in excess of about Rs.3.50 lakhs which had already been paid to them. All the writ petitioners had superannuated much prior to 2010 when the gratuity limits were enhanced to Rs.10 lakhs. At the time of their superannuation the gratuity limit was fixed at Rs.3.50 lakhs. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners contend

¶38

that in terms of the policy document itself, they were entitled to sums more than Rs.3.50 lakhs.

¶39

The fundamental defect in the proceedings that we find is that the writ petition was argued without LIC being made a party. In the facts noted above, it cannot be said that LIC was only a proper party and not a necessary party, for, the payments were under a policy issued by the LIC and the payments had to come from the LIC. What in fact was the policy document/agreement and what was its effect being the question, it cannot be decided in the absence of LIC. Any relief that is to be given would be necessarily a direction to the LIC to make the payments. Thus,

¶40

WA No. 1098 of 2017

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

in our view, the writ petition in absence of LIC was itself not maintainable.

¶43

Having considered the matter, we would vacate the judgment of learned single Judge as impugned in this intra court appeal and remit the matter to the learned single Judge with liberty to the writ petitioners to implead LIC as a party respondent and for disposal of the writ petition, after notice and hearing of the parties in accordance with law. We may also notice that the learned single Judge has referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Co-op. Bank Ltd [2005 (3) KLT 320]. On that issue and considering that judgment, recently there are two other Division Bench judgments being Nedupuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Rugmini [2011 (3) KLT 134] and The Travancore Cements Employees Co-operative Bank

¶44

Ltd. v. Ramachandran Nair [2014 (1) KLT 889]. The Court would consider those issues as well.

¶45