The petitioner, who retired from service on 28.02.2018

while working as Secretary of the second respondent Service

Co-operative Bank, which is a Co-operative Society registered

under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the

rules made thereunder, after rendering a total service of 30

years, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the first respondent Joint Registrar to see that

the second respondent Society pays the gratuity amount of

Rs.14,07,133/- to the petitioner along with interest from

01.03.2018 till the date of realisation. The petitioner has also

sought for a declaration that she is entitled to receive

Rs.14,07,133/- as gratuity amount on her retirement from

service.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that, the liability of the 2^nd respondent Society for payment of

gratuity is covered by a policy taken from the Employees'

Group Gratuity Life Insurance Scheme. At the time of

retirement, the Life Insurance Corporation forwarded a sum of

-3-

Rs.14,07,133/- to the second respondent Society, which is

evident from Ext.P1 claim form dated 26.02.2018. However,

the second respondent disbursed only a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as

gratuity to the petitioner.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Senior Government Pleader for the first respondent,

the learned counsel for the second respondent Bank and also

the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent LIC.

4.

The issue raised in this writ petition regarding the

entitlement of the employees of the Co-operative Societies

covered by the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act

to receive better terms under Section 4(5) of the said Act is

now settled by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in

Chandrasekharan Nair G. and others v. Kerala State

Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank

Ltd. and others [2017 (4) KLT 276]. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of

the said decision read thus;

“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

-4-

would also go to the employee since the contract of

insurance would fall within the ambit of Section

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 Section

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 the employer to discharge his

liability and the premium paid is part of the wages

only. Of course the wording of the second proviso to

Rule 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 Section 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 Section 14 of the

-5-

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 t