The petitioner, who was an employee of the 2nd respondent Co-operative Bank retired from service on 31.12.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation, while working as Assistant General Manager, after rendering a total service of 36 years. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse forthwith a sum of Rs.2,84,022/- towards balance gratuity payable, in excess of the amount received by the 2nd respondent Bank from the 3rd respondent Life Insurance Corporation (for brevity, 'LIC'), together with interest. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Joint Registrar to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 representation dated 2.5.2018, as early as possible, after affording him an opportunity of being heard.

2. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the liability to pay gratuity to the employees of the 2nd respondent Bank is covered by the Employees' Group Gratuity Assurance Scheme with the 3rd respondent LIC. In the case of the petitioner, at the time of his retirement, LIC paid a sum of Rs.3,50,470/- to the 2nd respondent Bank, towards the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner, which is evident from Ext.P1 communication dated 7.1.2008. Out of the said amount, the 2nd respondent Bank paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the petitioner. The contention raised in this writ petition is that the total gratuity payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.6,34,022/- (Rs.30,527x36x15/26) by counting his total length of service. Therefore, the higher amount of gratuity, in addition to Rs.3,50,000/- paid by the 2nd respondent Bank comes to Rs.2,84,022/-.

3. The entitlement of the employees of the Co-operative Societies covered by the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, to receive better terms under Section 4(5) of the said Act, is now settled by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and others v. Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and others (2017 (4) KLT 276). Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said decision read thus;

“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 Section 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 Section 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 the employer to discharge his liability and the premium paid is part of the wages only. Of course the wording of the second proviso to Rule 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 Section 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 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 Section 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 therew