MATHEW KORAH Vs. KADUTHURUTHY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a retired employee of the 1st respondent Bank. The petitioner had, on retirement, made an application to the 1st respondent Bank for gratuity and admittedly, he was paid Rs.10 Lakhs as gratuity for the service rendered; which is the maximum permissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity 'the Gratuity Act') as has been amended w.e.f. 24.05.2010. The payment was opposed by the Life Insurance Corporation (for brevity 'LIC'), with whom the 1st respondent Bank insured its gratuity liability.

(2.) The short contention of the petitioner based on Ext.P2 communication of the LIC to the respondent Bank, is that, in fact, the eligible claim of gratuity was Rs.14,37,772/- where as the claim submitted by the Bank was for only Rs.10 Lakhs. The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 communication from the LIC. The petitioner having received the amounts payable as per the Gratuity Act was again before the 1st respondent Bank for disbursing the balance amount due, as has been noticed in Ext.P2. The 1st respondent Bank declined the same by Ext.P4 wherein it was contended that as per Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for brevity 'the Rules'), there is a stipulation that the gratuity paid shall not exceed 15 months pay and the 2nd proviso to Rule 59 of the Rules prohibits payment of gratuity in excess of the amounts which an employee is eligible as per the Gratuity Act.

(3.) The petitioner assails the decision of the respondent Bank on the ground that when a Scheme provides for better benefits then, as per sub section 5 of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act the rights of the employee to receive such amounts shall not be affected. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P5 judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court and the decisions reported in Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2005 3 KERLT 320 and Nedupuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Rugmini, 2011 3 KERLT 134. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court consistently held that though the payment of gratuity is regulated by the Gratuity Act; any scheme, award or contract which entitle the employee to better benefits than that provided under the Gratuity Act shall not be affected and the employee's entitlement under such scheme, award or contract cannot be curtailed on the strength of the provision in the Gratuity Act prescribing the maximum limit.