Remanded

P.Ramachandran v. the Joint Registrar (General)

Kerala HC30 Nov 2022WP(C)/26240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, retired bank employees, challenged insufficient gratuity payment by the co-operative Society. The Court directed the Society to immediately examine applicability of Rule 59 of KCS Rules and decide on balance payments within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed Managing Committee to hear petitioners, decide on Rule 59 applicability, and pay balance if entitled within two months.

P.Ramachandran Vs the Joint Registrar (General) — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 26240 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

P.RAMACHANDRAN AGED 66 YEARS INTERNAL AUDITOR (RETIRED), BEDADKA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KUNDAMKUZHY, KUNDAMKUZHY, P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT, S/O. C.KRISHNAN NAIR, R/AT. MUTHIRAMGANAM HOUSE, BEDADKA P.O, CHENGALA VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2 DAMODARAN M.V AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER (RETIRED), BEDADKA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KUNDAMKUZHY, KUNDAMKUZHY P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, S/O. V.RAMAN,R/A. MUNDAVALAPIL HOUSE, OLAT P.O, TRIKARIPUR VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KASARAGOD - 671323. 2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KASARAGOD - 671323. 3 BEDADKA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KUNDAMKUZHY, KUNDAMKUZHY P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD (LIC) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, JEEVAN JYOTHI, M.G. ROAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671121. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.ANOOP SRI.SAHASRANAMAN PB SRI.S.EASWARAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C)No.26240 of 2022

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. ========================= W.P.(C) No. 26240 of 2022

¶14

========================== Dated this the 30^th November, 2022

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioners are stated to have retired from the services of the 3^rd respondent – “Bedadka Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.” ('Society' for short), and allege that they have not paid their full eligible gratuity, along with other retiral benefits.

¶17

Sri.Kodoth Sridharan – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that, since the Bye-laws/Regulations of the Society do not provide any provisions for payment of gratuity to its employees, the rigour of Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('KCS Rules' for short) apply; but that, instead of doing so, the Society has paid them only Rs.10 lakhs each, saying that this is the amount that they have received from the 4^th respondent – Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC' for short) under the Group Gratuity Scheme. The learned counsel very vehemently argued that, when Rule 59 of the “KCS Rules” apply, the fact that LIC paid a lesser amount than what is eligible under it, would not defeat his clients' claims and that they are entitled to the balance amounts of Rs.5,23,600/- and Rs.2,73,804/-

¶18

WP(C)No.26240 of 2022

¶19

: 3 :

¶20

respectively. He thus prayed that Society be directed to pay these amounts to his clients, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman – learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent – LIC, submitted that, as per the Group Gratuity Scheme, his client is only liable to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the Society, which has been done. He, therefore, prayed that no further orders be issued against his client.

¶22

Sri.P.V.Anoop – learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, conceded that the Bye-laws/Regulations of the Society do not contain any provisions for payment of gratuity to its employees; and argued that hence, the petitioners cannot seek any further amounts, than what has been given to them under the Group Gratuity Scheme of the LIC. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶23

I must say that, I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Sri.P.V.Anoop because, law has been well settled, through the judgment of a learned Full Bench of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair.G and others vs. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

¶24

and others [2017 (4) KLT 276], that if the employees are entitled to a better payment, than what is provided under the

¶25

WP(C)No.26240 of 2022

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

Payment of Gratuity Act, certainly, they are liable to be paid the same.

¶28

In the case at hand, it is conceded that the Byelaws/Regulations of the Society do not have any provisions for payment of gratuity. Therefore, the question arises whether Rule 59 of the “KCS Rules” would apply, and this is extremely relevant. This is because, in the absence of specific provisions in the Byelaws of the Society, it is normally the statutory ones would apply; and since the Society does not have a case contrary to this, surely, it is a matter which will have to be considered by them in that perspective.

¶29

In other words, even though the LIC has paid Rs.10 lakhs, the Society cannot take refuge under it and say that they will not pay any balance to the petitioners, even though Rule 59 of the “KCS Rules” may apply. This is not the spirit of the judgments holding the field; and am certainly, therefore, of the view that the petitioners were justified in having approached this Court.

¶30

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the Managing Committee of the 3^rd respondent Society to hear the petitioners immediately, and decide whether the provisions of Rule 59 of the “KCS Rules” would apply to them, in the absence of any other Regulations/Bye-laws being applicable; thus culminating in an

¶31

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Needless to say, if, through the afore enquiry, it is found that petitioners are entitled to larger amounts, same shall be paid to them within a period of two months thereafter.

¶35

In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I direct the petitioners to mark appearance before the Secretary of the Society at 11 A.M. On 05.12.2022; on which day, he will refer them to the Managing Committee, who will thereupon act in terms of the afore directions, within the time frame fixed.

¶36

Even though Sri.Kodoth Sridharan intervened at this time to say that his clients have also sought interest, I do not propose to answer this at this stage, and leave it open, in the event the Society refuses to accede to it during the afore enquiry.

¶37

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

anm

: 6 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26240/2022

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBI	TS
Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.02.2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.02.2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.06.2022 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
RESPONDENTS' EXHI	BITS
Exhibit R.4 (a)	TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM FORM DATED 08.07.2017 SENT BY THE EMPLOYER BANK IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONR.
Exhibit.R.4 (b)	TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM FORM DATED 08.07.2017 SENT BY THE EMPLOYER BANK IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit.R.4 (c)	TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PAYMENT LETTER DATED 03.08.2017 AND ADDRESSED TO THE EMPLOYER BANK SENT BY THIS RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN RESPECT THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit.R.4 (d)	TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PAYMENT LETTER DATED 17.07.2017 ADDRESSED TO THE EMPLOYER BANK SENT BY THIS RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN RESPECT THE 2ND PETITIONER.

P.Ramachandran v. the Joint Registrar (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramachandran v. the Joint Registrar (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bpcl Employees Co-Operative Society LTD.NO.226 Vs K.R.Santosh

R.K.Vinod Vs Sunitha Jacob

K.R Santhosh Vs the B.P.C.L Employees Co-Operaive Society Ltd. NO.226

Ernakulam Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs Anand.K.v

Pallikkunnu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs Roopesh K.

Kerala Malanad Karshaka Produce Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal