Disposed

Vijayakumari v. Malappuram Service Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC24 Nov 2022WP(C)/22958/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired bank employee claiming unpaid gratuity, sought direction for the balance amount. The court directed her to approach the Society's competent authority with an application, leaving rights to approach an arbitrator open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the Society's competent authority with an application for disbursement of gratuity balance within one month of judgment receipt.

Vijayakumari Vs Malappuram Service… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22958 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VIJAYAKUMARI AGED 66 YEARS W/O DAMODARAN, NANDANAM, MUNNAMPADI, MALAPPURAM-676505. BY ADVS. BHANU THILAK S.R.PRASANTH VISHNU.R SARUN K. IDICULA SHEENA S. THASMILA.K

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA- 676505. 2 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, P&GS DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER P&GS, JEEVAN PRAKASH, KOZHIKODE, KERALA- 673001. BY ADVS. ABDUL JAWAD.K N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR ABDUL MAJEED.N(A-749) A.GRANCY JOSE(K/1204-M/2010)

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 22958 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petitioner says that she retired from

¶15

the services of the 1^st respondent – Society as its Secretary on 31.05.2014 and that even though she was entitled to the gratuity of Rs.15,85,754/-, she has only been paid Rs.10,00,000/-; thus praying that said Society be directed to disburse to her the balance amount, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶16

The afore request of Sri.Bhanu Thilak –

¶17

learned counsel for the petitioner, was answered by Sri.K.Abdul Jawad - learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, saying that his client has paid to the petitioner every amount that was received from the 2^nd respondent – Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) under the Group Gratuity Scheme and that nothing further is payable. He explained that,

¶18

WP(C) NO. 22958 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

even going by the Bye-Laws of the Society, the

¶21

maximum amount that could have been disbursed to the petitioner was only Rs.10,00,000/-,

¶22

which has been done and therefore, that this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶23

Sri.N.Rajagopalan Nair – learned

¶24

counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent – LIC,

¶25

affirmed that his client has only paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the Society and that no other amount is payable under the Group Gratuity Scheme.

¶26

When I consider and evaluate the afore

¶27

rival submissions, it is indubitable that law has been well settled through the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair.G & others v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.&

¶28

others [2017(5) KHC 15 (FB)], that if an

¶29

employee is entitled to a higher benefit as

¶30

per the provisions of Section 4(5) of the

¶31

WP(C) NO. 22958 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

Payment of Gratuity Act, same will have to be made available to him/her.

¶34

Therefore, the real question is whether there is a higher benefit eligible to the petitioner, which is a question in the realm of facts and which will depend upon the ByeLaws and Regulations governing the Society.

¶35

I notice from the pleadings that petitioner has not approached the Society, nor had the latter rejected her claim until now.

¶36

I am, therefore, of the firm view that

¶37

petitioner should be given liberty to approach the Society with an appropriate representation, which will then have to be considered by its competent Authority with reference to their Bye-Laws, as as also the provisions relating to gratuity and then decide whether any further amounts are payable.

¶38

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶39

WP(C) NO. 22958 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

writ petition with the following directions:

¶42

a) The petitioner is given liberty to

¶43

approach the competent Authority of the Society with an appropriate application for disbursement of the amounts of gratuity over

¶44

Rs.10,00,000/-; and if this is done within month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, its competent Authority will consider it, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and take an

¶45

apposite decision thereon, within a period of one month thereafter.

¶46

additional amounts are found liable to be paid to the petitioner, the Society shall disburse

¶47

the same to her, within a period of three months thereafter.

¶48

find against the petitioner, then her rights

¶49

under the Statutory Scheme, including to

¶50

WP(C) NO. 22958 OF 2022

¶51

¶52

approach the Arbitrator, is left open; for which purpose, all contentions are also left undecided.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

SAS

¶57

WP(C) NO. 22958 OF 2022

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22958/2022

¶60

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶61

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03-122022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GROUP GRAVITY SCHEME WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 18.6.2013. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R2A TRUE COPIES OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1185, DATED 22-07-2010. Exhibit R2B A TRUE COPY OF THE RULES OF THE GRATUITY SCHEME. Exhibit R2C A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM FORM. Exhibit R2D A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-06-2014.

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

P.A. TO JUDGE

Vijayakumari v. Malappuram Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumari v. Malappuram Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Infopark (India) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Jayaram.B. Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Consumer Federation

Deepumon Mathew Varghese, Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Sudha Jacob Koshy Vs State of Kerala

Reena Vs V.R. Premkumar

Mary Joseph Vs Sheeba George IAS