Retired employees are entitled to higher gratuity benefits under bank regulations which prevail over conflicting statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J

This intra-court appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.37932/2022, challenging the judgment dated 26.10.2023, passed by the learned single judge, allowing the writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 15 herein.

2. Respondents 1 to 15 herein/writ petitioners are the retired employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for short). Respondents 1 to 15 have rendered more than 20 years of service and they are aggrieved by the non-disbursement of their eligible higher gratuity, in terms of Appendix IV of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Staff Regulations(hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'). At the time of joining, respondents 1 to 15 had signed a declaration stating that they are agreeing for gratuity equal to one months' pay for every year of service, subject to a maximum of 15 months' pay. Even though respondents 1 to 15 were eligible to a higher gratuity as per the Regulations, all of them were paid only Rs. 20 Lakhs. Since, respondents 1 to 15 were eligible to receive better terms of gratuity as per the Regulations, they submitted Exts.P2 to P16 representations respectively, before the Bank claiming higher gratuity. But the Bank took no action in the representations submitted by respondents 1 to 15. Hence, respondents 1 to 15 filed the afore writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1^st respondent Bank to disburse the balance eligible higher gratuity amount to the petitioners.

ii) For a declaration that the proviso (iii) to Rule 59 of the KCS Rule is not applicable to the employees who have signed Exhibit P1 declaration.”

3. The learned single judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to disburse the balance eligible gratuity to respondents 1 to 15, within a period of three months.

4. Heard Adv.Gilbert George Correya, the learned counsel for the appellants and Adv.Anshim K.K., the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the party respondents were paid Rs.20 Lakhs on their retirement, as per their entitlement under Section 4 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 . He, by relying on Ext.R1, submitted that the Bank has restricted the amount of gratuity payable to the employees, as Rs 20 Lakhs and respondents 1 to 15, who are well aware of the same, has accepted the said amount without any protest. He contended that the Regulations relied on by the party respondents was prior to the enactment of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and after the enactment, it is the provision of the said Act which becomes the enabling provision for payment of gratuity. He further submitted that since the Regulations runs contrary to Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the same is not binding on the Bank and the Bank is only liable to pay the amount as prescribed in the Rules. He argued that as per Section 13A of the , any bye laws inconsistent or contrary to the provisions of the Act or Rules cannot survive and therefore, the Regulations are of no avail to the party respondents. He contended that Ext.P1 is only a declaration contained in the Staff Regulations of the Bank and the same cannot be interpreted as an agreement for claiming more amount as gratuity.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the party respondents supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He argued that as per the Full Court decision of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair G. and Others v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and Others [ 2017(5) KHC 15 ], the employees are entitled for better gratuity amount, if they are covered by an award, agreement or contract and that Ext.P1 is one such agreement. He submitted that as per Ext.P