Employees are entitled to gratuity benefits under insurance policies that exceed statutory limits as per the Payment of Gratuity Act.

COMMON JUDGMENT

P.V. Balakrishnan , J.

These intra-court appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 19.11.2021 passed by the learned single judge in W.P.(C) No. 11877 of 2020. Writ appeal 39 of 2022 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 and writ appeal 46 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11877 of 2020.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as in their status in the writ petition for convenience.

3. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the non-payment of the entire amount of gratuity payable to him under Section 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,' for short). The writ petitioner joined the service of the 1^st respondent bank on 01.07.1981 and retired from service on 31.10.2018, after serving nearly 38 years. After retirement, even though retiremental benefits were sanctioned to the petitioner, the gratuity was not paid in full. The petitioner is entitled to Rs.38,29,372/- towards gratuity under the 'Cannanore District Co-operative Central Bank Employees Group Gratuity and Life Assurance Scheme'. The 1^st respondent raised a claim for the afore amount under Master Policy No.3839 on behalf of the petitioner from the 3^rd respondent LIC. The 3^rd respondent credited the afore amount into the account of the 1^st respondent, as evidenced by Ext. P1. But the 1^st respondent bank only paid a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs to the petitioner from the said amount. Even though the petitioner made a request before the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, nothing transpired. In the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent bank also claimed a sum of Rs.1,62,572 /- as additional gratuity from the 3^rd respondent LIC, and received it. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the entire benefits flowing out of the LIC scheme and hence is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.19,91,944/-. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the afore writ petition seeking the following relief:

''Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the balance amount of gratuity amounting to Rs.19,91,944/- received by the 1^st respondent Bank from the 3^rd respondent LIC, as per Master Policy No.3839 together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.''

4. The learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 19.11.2021 passed in this case and in W.P.(C)No.11845 of 2020 allowed the writ petition in the following manner; ''Respondent bank is directed to remit the amount of Rs.2,40,806/- and Rs.19,91,944/- to the respective petitioners after making request to the LIC to whom they refunded back. Let the request is made to the LIC within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter the learned counsel representing the LIC submits that they would remit the amount as expeditiously as possible within a period of another one month and thereafter, the bank would disburse the same to the petitioners within another period of 15 days ie., total period of 45 days. In case, the aforementioned amount after completion of the formality is not remitted by the bank to the petitioners, it will entail interest as provided under the Payment Gratuity Act.''

5. Heard Adv. Meena John, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Adv. Gilbert George Correya, the learned counsel appearing for the Bank and Adv. Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for LIC.

6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that even though the learned Single Judge has ordered the bank to disburse the amount of Rs.19,91,944/- after getting the amount from the LIC, no amount towards interest has been granted. She also subm