In this contempt matter, the Court addressed the petitioners' grievance regarding non-compliance of a prior direction concerning their gratuity. The Court held that the gratuity liability was discharged and dismissed the contempt petition.
Rule is discharged and contempt petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 232 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN 17.12.2020 IN WP(C) 35127/2011
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS:
1P MOOSA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O. MOIDU POOVAKURISSI, RESIDING AT POOVAKURISSI
HOUSE, MOORKANAD P.O, PERINTHALMANA, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT 679 338
(RETIRED CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD, PERINTHALMANNA)
2P. MOIDUTTY,
AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O. MOHAMMED, PATTUKUTH, CHERUKARA P.O,
PERINTHLAMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (RETIRED CHIEF
ACCOUNTANT, THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
PERINTHALMANNA)
BY ADV P.V.BABY
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
C RAVINDRANATHAN,
S/O. KRISHNAN, SECRETARY, THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD, PERINTHALMANNA NO. 1758, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 322
BY ADVS.
V.KRISHNA MENON
J.SURYA
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 232 OF 2022
-2-
JUDGMENT
Grievance of the petitioners in the Contempt petition is on account of the non compliance of the direction of this Court whereby the writ petition was allowed in terms of the directions and the observations contained in the Full Bench judgment of this Court titled as Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. ( 2017 (4) KLT 276 (F.B.).
CON.CASE(C) NO. 232 OF 2022
-3-
of the judgment. There is a rampant and blatant defiance to the direction of this Court and therefore the respondents are liable to be proceeded under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 232 OF 2022
-4-
judgment of the Full Bench reads as under:
”5. The liability to pay gratuity does not get shifted to the insurer by the compulsory insurance and the effect is only that the maturity value of the master policy would go to the credit of the dues of the employee. Any amount in excess of the gratuity due would also go to the employee since the contract of insurance would fall within the ambit of S.4(5) of the Central Act. Any deficit in the amount due as gratuity to the employee after payment by the insurer has to be met by the employer only as the liability squarely rests on him under S.4(2) of the Central Act. The insurer cannot be made liable to pay any amount in excess of the maturity value of the master policy as the same would be dependent on the premium paid to him. The compulsory insurance under S.4A of the Central Act is only to facilitate employer to discharge his liability and the premium paid is part of the wages only. Of course the wording of the second proviso to R.59(iii) of the Rules gives rise to a doubt that the employee would be pinned down to the amount of gratuity specified in the Central Act. Such an interpretation would render S.4(5) of the Central Act otiose whereunder the employee has a right to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. The provisions of the Central Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect
CON.CASE(C) NO. 232 OF 2022
-5-
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or instrument or contract. The overriding effect of the Central Act over other enactments is explicit from S.14 of the Central Act which is to the following effect:
“14. Act to override other enactments, etc.- The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.” ”
insured amount the liability is fastened upon the employer. The dispute involved in the present contempt petition is whether the petitioners would be entitled to the maximum amount of Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees ten lakhs only) as per the provisions of the Central Act i.e., Section 4 whereby the limit was enhanced from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- with effect from 29.03.2018. There is no such retroactive application of the amendment. Respondents have
CON.CASE(C) NO. 232 OF 2022
-6-
already discharged the liability in the payment as both the petitioners have retired before the date of the amendment i.e., on 30.06.2009 and 31.03.2010.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 232 OF 2022
-7-
The petitioners are at liberty to claim the aforesaid. As and when they approach the respondents or provide their bank details to the respondents, the amount will be credited. In this view of the matter rule is discharged and contempt petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
vv
CON.CASE(C) NO. 232 OF 2022
-8-
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 232/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-
12-2020 IN WP(C0 NO. 35127/2011
Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
6-12-2021 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT
BY THE PETITIONERS
Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
24-12-2021 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER FROM THE RESPONDENT
Annexure A4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
24-12-2021 RECEIVED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER FROM THE RESPONDENT
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the gratuity limit enhanced by the Central Act amendment effective 29.03.2018 despite retiring before that date.
Whether the employer has discharged its liability for the gratuity amount paid by the Life Insurance Corporation in excess of the pre-amendment limit.
Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have liberty to claim the excess amount from the respondent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.Explained¶17
Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (2017 (4) KLT 276 (F.B.)
7 provisions across 3 enactments
1P Moosa
2P Mooidutty
C Ravindranathan
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court