Allowed

The Management v. K.Ramakrishnan

Madras HC19 Feb 2021WP/1257/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the management seeking quashing of an order directing payment of gratuity. The court held that since the employee was permitted to retire voluntarily and was acquitted of criminal charges with a fine, forfeiture under Section 4(6) did not apply, and the order must be complied with.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; management directed to pay gratuity within four weeks with interest.

The Management Vs K.Ramakrishnan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :19.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.No.1257 of 2016

¶6

The Management Puthu Agraharam PrimaryAgricultural Co-op. Credit Society Ltd Puthur (P.O) Salem-636 010. .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.K.Ramakrishnan

¶9

2.Assistant Labour Commissioner District Collectorate Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 001. .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the order passed by the second respondent in P.G.case No.67 of 2014 dated 17.04.2015 and the consequent notice in A4/896/2015 dated 23.10.2015 and 11.12.2015 passed by the second respondent against the petitioner management and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.Sandhesh Mahalingam for M/s.S. Varsha Shankar For Respondent : Mr..L.Chandrakumar for R1 O R D E R

¶12

Inveighing the order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972( herein after referred to as the Act) the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in proceedings A4/8961/015 dated 23.10.2015, the Management has preferred the writ petition.

¶13

According to the management the 1^st respondent/employee has committed offence u/s. 408 and 447 IPC. A criminal case was lodged against him and he was found guilty of the offences and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. On appeal, the Appellate

¶14

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

¶15

Court had acquitted him from both the charges by imposing more fine in view of repayment of the misappropriated amount. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent has approached the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity which was ordered in his favour. In the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent, by resolution of the management dated 30.04.2014, was permitted to retire from service. On an appeal preferred by the management, the Appellate Authority has also confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority and directed the petitioner to pay gratuity to the tune of Rs. 6,71,416/- along with interest at 10% per annum.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the 1^st respondent was charged for the moral turpitude. Therefore, as per Sec.4(6) of the Act, they are entitled to forfeit the amount. Therefore, the order passed by the Authority under the Act is not sustainable according to the petitioner.

¶17

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would contend that on 30.04.2014, the petitioner management has passed resolution, whereby permitted the petitioner to retire from service. Pursuant to the same on 02.05.2014 proceedings were issued and the petitioner retired from service. Once the petitioner was not permitted to retire and not terminated from service, Sec.4(6) of the Act will not come into play.

¶18

The learned counsel for 1^st respondent would rely on the judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (3) LLJ 693, The Management S.439, Salem Agricultural Producers' Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd, Salem Vs. V.Rajendran and Others, for the proposition that unless the employee is terminated from service, Sec.4(6) of the Act cannot be invoked for forfeiture of the amount.

¶19

In the instant case, I do find that the 1^st respondent was not terminated from service, but on the other hand he was permitted to retire from service. Even in the criminal case, he was acquitted by imposition of fine in view of the fact that he has paid the entire amount misappropriated by him. In other words, there is no loss caused to the Society by the offence committed by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, in view of the order passed by the management permitting the 1^st respondent to retire from service and that no loss caused by him to the Society, the order of payment of gratuity cannot be withheld. The authority has rightly granted the relief and the order need not be interfered with. Hence, the petitioner shall make the payment of gratuity to the 1^st respondent as directed by the Appellate Authority viz., the 2^nd respondent.

¶20

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

¶21

Writ petition merits no consideration and the order passed
by the 2 nd respondent shall be complied with by the management
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order along with interest till the date of disbursement.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
kpr
To
The Assistant Labour Commissioner
District Collectorate
Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 001
+1 Cc to Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, Advocate sr 10156.
+1 Cc to M/s. S. Varsha Shankar, Advocate sr 10770.
W.P.No.1257 of 2016
AAB(CO)
SP(12/03/2021)

¶22

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

The Management v. K.Ramakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management v. K.Ramakrishnan

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

S.Thensami Vs Union of India

Sri P.K.Govindaraju Vs The Central Government Industrial Tribunal

P.Harikumar Vs Government of India

Heavy Vehicles Factory National Vs Union of India

United Labour Federation Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

T.Senthil Murugan Vs Dhatchanamoorthy