Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J
JAYASUNDARAN K – Appellant
Versus
KALIKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6042 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Aboobacker Sidheeque
For the Respondents: Ajmal P., G.Keerthivas

Co-operative banks are legally obligated to pay the balance of gratuity to employees that exceeds the amount disbursed through insurance schemes, in accordance with the established legal dictum regarding full gratuity entitlement.

Headnote:The petitioners, former employees, sought a writ of mandamus directing the cooperative bank to pay the balance gratuity amount, relying on the precedent set by this court in a Full Bench decision regarding entitlement to full gratuity. The petitioners argued that the bank is liable for any shortfall in gratuity payments over and above those disbursed by the LIC. The court, acknowledging the settled legal position, affirmed that cooperative institutions are obligated to cover the difference in gratuity amounts. The core issue was whether the respondent bank is liable for the balance gratuity amount due to the employees. The court held that, following the established ratio decidendi, the employer must ensure the payment of total gratuity eligibility, and the burden for the differential amount lies with the institution itself, as held in similar previous petitions. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent bank to disburse the balance gratuity within three months, with interest at 6% per annum applicable if payment is delayed.

Table of Content
1. employers are liable for the shortfall of gratuity payments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to pay the balance gratuity amount payable in terms of the special scheme for payment of gratuity to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

2. The contention raised by the petitioners is that going by the dictum laid down in Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. [2017 (5) KHC 15] the petitioners are eligible to receive the full amount of gratuity and the difference, if any, over and above the amount paid by the LIC, is to be paid by the 1^st respondent bank. The petitioners submit that in similar circumstances this Court has interfered and passed Ext.P2 judgment, which is not disputed by the 1^st respondent also.

3. After hearing both sides and in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair’s case cited Supra, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent bank to disburse the balance amount of gratuity to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the amount is not paid as ordered above, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which it became due.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMViju Abraham, JJAYASUNDARAN K – AppellantVersusKALIKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED – RespondentWP(C) NO. 6042 OF 2026

Co-operative banks are legally obligated to pay the balance of gratuity to employees that exceeds the amount disbursed through insurance schemes, in accordance with the established legal dictum regarding full gratuity entitlement.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J
JAYASUNDARAN K – Appellant
Versus
KALIKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6042 OF 2026