Point of Law: Sec.7(3-A) of the Act only stipulates that for delayed payment of gratuity, the same entails payment of simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term deposits, as the Central Government may, by notification specify

JUDGMENT :

Alexander Thomas, J.

W.A No.1509/2021 arises out of the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2017 rendered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing W.P(C) No.14773/2013, as confirmed by the final order dated 19.03.2021 dismissing R.P No.942/2019 in that W.P(C). Whereas, W.A No.1547/2021 arises out of the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2017 rendered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing W.P(C) No.14774/2013, as confirmed by the final order dated 19.03.2021 dismissing R.P.No.952/2019 in that W.P(C).

2. Heard Sri. Ashok B. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in these two appeals, Smt. Rosin Joseph, learned Advocate appearing for R3 (Co-operative Society-Employer), in these cases and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R4 to R6 in these cases. Notices to R1 (Kerala Co-operative Tribunal) & R2 (Co-operative Arbitration Court), being adjudicatory Fora, will stand dispensed with.

3. The main issue raised in these cases is as to whether the beneficial provision contained in the proviso to Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, (in short “KCS Rules”) as it stood prior to the statutory amendment made thereto prospectively w.e.f. 02.11.2010, can be treated as better terms of gratuity, as conceived in the beneficial provision contained in Sec.4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Central Act 39 of 1972) ? The contention raised by the learned Advocate appearing for R3 (Co-operative Society employees) in these cases, is that, any “award” or “agreement” or “contract” explicitly enumerated in Sec.4(5) of the Central Act alone would come within the beneficial provision in the central enactment and that a statutory rule, as in Rule 59 proviso framed under Sec.80(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (State Act 21 of 1969) (in short “KCS Act”), will not come within the three categories mentioned in Sec.4(5) and that the said three categories mentioned in Sec.4(5) are exhaustive and no other category is included therein, etc.

4. Whereas, the case of the appellants is that, if the beneficial provision, granting conceding gratuity higher than the ceiling limit in terms of Sec.4(3) of the Act, is made on the basis of a statutory rule, as in the present case, then the same would stand on a higher pedestal or at least on an equal footing, as the three categories mentioned in Sec.4(5) of the Central Act and that, the three categories mentioned in Sec.4(5), are not exhaustive and that the beneficial provision that is given on the basis of a statutory rule framed by the State Government, which provides for a gratuity amount higher than the ceiling limit, stipulated under Sec.4(3) of the Central Act, would also get the beneficial protection under Sec.4(5) of the said Act.

5. After hearing all the parties concerned, we are inclined to accept the abovesaid submission of the appellants in these cases and so, we are constrained to overrule the abovesaid contention raised by the 3rd respondent Co-operative Society-Employer. The reasons for arriving at this conclusion will be dealt with hereinafter.

6. A brief recital of the factual details in these cases would be pertinent. Both the appellants/writ petitioners had retired from service and thereafter, they had made their claim for payment of gratuity, higher than the ceiling limit under Sec.4(3) of the Act, before the State Arbitration Court and later before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal and the said contentions of the appellants have been concurrently overruled by both the said Fora. Hence, the appellants herein preferred the aforementioned Writ Petitions (Civil), in which the pleas have also been rejected by the learned Single Judge and the review petitions preferred by them have also been repelled by the learned Single Judge, as above.

It is averred by the appellant in W.A No.1509/2021 in his W.P(C) that he was having a