Dismissed

T.Rajarajan, v. the Appellate Authority /

Madras HC12 Dec 2018WP(MD)/5794/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act lacks jurisdiction when the gratuity claim arises from better terms conferred via a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act rather than statutory liability. Consequently, the writ petitions challenging the authority's order were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Appellate Authority were sustained. Writ petitions were dismissed. Liberty granted for the petitioners to approach the competent forum for the gratuity amount payable under the

T.Rajarajan, Vs the Appellate Authority / — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 12.12.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.5794; 6021; 6042; 6107; 6166 & 6291 of 2018 and

¶7

WMP(MD)Nos.5924; 5890; 5918; 5951; 6012 & 6125 of 2018

¶8

1.T.Rajarajan	..Petitioner	in W.P.(MD)No.5794	o	f 2018
2.K.Ramachandran	..Petitioner	in W.P.(MD)No.6021	of	2018
3.K.Rajagopalan	..Petitioner	in W.P.(MD)No.6042	of	2018
4.K.Muthuvel	..Petitioner	in W.P.(MD)No.6107	of	2018
5.A.Dharmalingam	..Petitioner	in W.P.(MD)No.6166	of	2018
6.S.Kaliyaperumal	..Petitioner Vs.	in W.P.(MD)No.6291	of	2018

¶9

1.The Appellate Authority/ Joint Commissioner of Labour,

¶10

Trichy.

¶11

2.The Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act/Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

¶12

Trichy.

¶13

3.The Management, Thanjavur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., West main Street, Thanjavur.

¶14

..Respondents in all the writ petitions

¶15

Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in P.G.A.No.87/2016; 82/2016; 83/2016; 85/2016; 86/2016 and 81/2016, dated 29.11.2017, respectively and quash the same, restore the second respondent's order.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

¶18

For Petitioner in all the Writ petitions :Mr.G.M.Xavier

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

The writ petitioners herein are the employees of the third respondent Co-operative Bank. Before joining the bank service, they had been adhoc employees of certain primary societies. After they reached the age of superannuation, the bank settled the gratuity benefits payable to them under the scheme applicable to them. The writ petitioners accepted the amount paid by the bank and made a further demand that the gratuity should be paid even in respect of the period, when they were in the service of the primary society. Since the management declined to consider the said demand, the writ petitioners moved the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Their applications were allowed. Challenging the same, the management moved the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority held that the statutory authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act will not have the jurisdiction in such matters. Thus, the appeals filed by the management got allowed. Challenging the same, the employees are before this Court.

¶21

2.It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners are not trying to enforce the statutory liability of the management to settle the gratuity dues of the employees. On the other hand, what is sought to be enforced are the terms of a settlement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Of course, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the employees, the employer can always confer better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement. The question is whether the controlling authority was right in entertaining the applications filed by the petitioners herein.

¶22

3.The issue is no longer res integra . The learned counsel for the management has filed number of case laws in his compilation set. One is the case reported in 2012 (IV) LLJ 625 [VENUGOPAL v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR] , wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the controlling authority would be attracted only if there is statutory liability to pay the amount of gratuity. In this case, admittedly, the writ petitioners are not trying to enforce the statutory liability of the employer to pay the amount of gratuity but the better terms conferred on them by way of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ settlement entered under Section 12(3) of the Act.

¶23

¶24

4.Therefore, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are sustained and the writ petitions stand dismissed. The writ petitioners are given liberty to move before the competent Forum/Authority/Court for payment of the balance gratuity amount, which according to the petitioners is payable to them. If such application is filed, the Authority/Forum/Court concerned shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to the management. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(AD I)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS I)

¶28

rj2

¶29

¶30

1.The Appellate Authority/ Joint Commissioner of Labour, Trichy.

¶31

2.The Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act/Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

¶32

Trichy.

¶33

3.The Management, Thanjavur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., West main Street, Thanjavur.

¶34

1CC TO MR. D. SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI, ADVOCATE SR 100154 1CC TO THE SPL GOVT PLEADER SR 1000079

¶35

DS RSK SAR 1 18 12 2018 3P 6C

¶36

W.P(MD)Nos.5794; 6021; 6042; 6107; 6166 & 6291 of 2018 12.12.2018

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.Rajarajan, v. the Appellate Authority /

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Rajarajan, v. the Appellate Authority /

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Srinivasan Vs the Chief Educational Officer

S. Nagarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mayilvaganam Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Karuppaiah Sadachi, Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

R.Rajasekar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

T.Suseela, Junior Inspector Vs the Director / Commissioner