JUDGMENT

Grievance of the petitioners in the Contempt petition is on account of the non compliance of the direction of this Court whereby the writ petition was allowed in terms of the directions and the observations contained in the Full Bench judgment of this Court titled as Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Co- operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (2017 (4) KLT 276 (F.B.).

2. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents the liability of the gratuity of the petitioners by the employer has been fixed as Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) though the petitioners are entitled to as per Rule 59(iii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 and also in terms of the observations recorded in paragraph No.5 of the judgment. There is a rampant and blatant defiance to the direction of this Court and therefore the respondents are liable to be proceeded under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. On the other hand learned counsel representing the Bank emphatically relied upon the averments made in paragraph Nos. 6, 7 & 8 of the counter affidavit saying that both the petitioners had retired prior to the amendment caused to Section 4 of the Central Act i.e., 29.03.2018 as their date of retirement is 30.06.2009 and 30.03.2010 and at relevant point of time the maximum gratuity was Rs.3,50,000/- which has already been paid to the petitioners and thus there is no further liability of the employer towards the petitioners.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

5. Paragraph No.5 of the aforementioned judgment of the Full Bench reads as under: ”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 S.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 S.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 employer to discharge his liability and the premium paid is part of the wages only. Of course the wording of the second proviso to R.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 S.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 S.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 therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.” ”

6. No doubt in case there is a short fall of the insured amount the liability is fastened upon the employer. The dispute involved in the present contempt petition is whether the petitioners would be entitled to the maximum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as per the provisions of the Central Act i.e., Section 4 whereby the limit was enhanced from Rs.3