P. Hemalatha vs General Manager (Administration) on 7 August, 2025
Similarly, the contentions put forth based on the
dictum in Nedupuzha Service Cooperative Bank (supra) are also
of no avail to the appellant since the said case can only be a
precedent for the proposition that the employer, being a trustee,
cannot claim the benefit of the Group Gratuity Policy taken by them
for the benefit of the employees and being a trustee, which arranged
with the LIC by taking the policy and making payment of premium to
provide gratuity and other benefits to its employees. The finding
rendered therein that all the benefits under the policy are to the
account of the employees, and nothing is retained by the employer,
which, by making the payment of premium, discharges its annual
liability for gratuity to the employees covered under the Scheme,
does not apply to the facts of the appellant's case in so far even as
per the LIC, nothing over Rs.10 lakhs had been paid by them to the
Corporation. A subsequent notification or amendment to the gratuity
WA NO.347/2025 12
2025:KER:58936
arrangement, even if beneficial, cannot be applied retroactively to
increase the gratuity of those who have already retired, especially
when the gratuity is based on a Group Gratuity Scheme. The
learned Single Judge had correctly declined the prayers sought in
the W.P.(C) and we find no reason to interfere with the said finding.