Employees are entitled to gratuity benefits as per the terms of their employment scheme, which can exceed statutory limits under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J

This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.24723/2021, challenging the judgment dated 11.11.2021, passed by the learned single judge, dismissing their writ petition.

2. The appellants/writ petitioners were employees of the former Kannur District Co-operative Bank, which is now known as Kerala State Co-operative Bank. Appellants 1 and 3 retired from service on 31.05.2019 and the 2^nd appellant retired on 31.01.2018. It is their case that Kannur District Co-operative Bank had joined the Employees Group Gratuity Pension Scheme introduced by the 3^rd respondent in order to ensure prompt and better gratuity to its employees on their retirement. For this purpose, the bank had subscribed to a master policy and had remitted the premium to the 3^rd respondent. The Scheme is a cash accumulation scheme, wherein the maximum amount of gratuity is not limited to 20 Lakhs, and the employee is entitled to gratuity as per the calculation based on the last drawn salary. At the time of retirement of the appellants, the 3^rd respondent paid a sum of Rs.27,66,162/-, Rs.21,92,050 and Rs.26,09,238/- respectively to the Bank for payment of gratuity, as per Ext.P1. But, the Bank paid only an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs each to the appellants and remitted back the balance amount to the 3^rd respondent. The appellants are entitled to the balance amount also. It is also their case that some employees, who retired from the very same bank, were disbursed gratuity without the ceiling limit of Rs. 20 Lakhs, as evidenced by Ext.P2. Hence, aggrieved by the non-payment of the balance amounts, the appellants preferred W.P.(C)No.30566/2019 before this Court and this Court by Ext.P3 judgment, dated 11.12.2019 disposed of the case with a direction to the Bank to pay the balance amount with 6% interest. Since the judgment was not complied with, the appellants filed Contempt Case No.413/2020 and in the meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent also filed R.P.No.1010/2020 stating that there is a calculation mistake in the salary and that the gratuity was calculated including Commission, HRA, bonus, etc,. The learned single judge by Ext.P4 order dated 03.02.2021, dismissed the Review Petition and on the same day, disposed of the Contempt Case by passing Ext.P5 order, granting liberty to the appellants to file a writ petition regarding the computation. Even though the 2^nd appellant filed Ext.P9 representation before the 1^st respondent, no action was taken to disburse the balance amount of gratuity. Hence, the appellants filed the afore writ petition seeking the following relief:

“i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the balance amount of gratuity amounting to Rs.7,66,162/-, Rs.1,92,050/- and Rs.6,09,238/- to petitioners 1 to 3 respectively, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court;”

3. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 11.11.2021 dismissed the writ petition by finding that, since disputed question of facts are involved, it cannot be considered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard Adv.T.R.Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Adv.Gilbert George Correya, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Adv. Sreekala Krishnadas, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the bank has availed a Group Gratuity Scheme from the 3^rd respondent i