M/s.The Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Addl. Commissioner of Labour

Madras HC21 Nov 2023WA/3200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common judgment dismissing multiple writ appeals filed by The Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. upholding orders granting gratuity to farm labourers. The High Court ruled the mill is not a seasonal establishment, workers are entitled to 15 days gratuity per year, and the deposit amount must be disbursed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed; Order dated 07.07.2023 unchanged; Disbursal of deposited gratuity amount to private respondents within one month.

M/s.The Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203, 3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶8

and

¶9

C.M.P. Nos.26173, 26176, 26178, 26181, 26182, 26220, 26221, 26229,

¶10

26231, 26257, 26258 of 2023

¶11

W.A. No.3200 of 2023:

¶12

The Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Smt. S. Lakshmi having office at Padalam 603 309 Kancheepuram District Appellant

¶13

¶14

1 The Additional Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) DMS Compound VI Floor Teynampet Chennai 600 018

¶15

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Additional Charge) (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Teynampet Chennai 600 018

¶16

3 T. Kathirvelu

¶17

4 K. Vengappan

¶18

5 Chellappan 6 Selvaraj

¶19

7 Govindan

¶20

8 Sundar

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

9 Balu

¶23

1/12

¶24

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶25

10 Govindaraj 11 Murugan 12 C. Mohan 13 Ramesh 14 M. Elumalai 15 K. Kuppusamy 16 K. Lakshmi 17 S. Chellam 18 A. Nagammal 19 V. Indrani 20 R. Bhavani 21 L. Nagammal 22 V. Gowri 23 S. Chinnammal 24 G. Yashodha 25 S. Chindamani 26 M. Dhanam 27 V. Chellam 28 R. Panchali 29 K. Parvathi 30 B. Valli 31 K. Ellammal 32 Chinnammal 33 G. Athiammal 34 M. Sulochana 35 M. Krishnaveni 36 D. Pattammal 37 V. Seetha 38 K. Kanniappan 39 M. Sumathi

¶26

Respondents

¶27

W.A. No.3201 of 2023:

¶28

The Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Smt. S. Lakshmi having office at Padalam 603 309 Kancheepuram District

¶29

Appellant

¶30

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

2/12

¶33

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶34

1 The Additional Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) DMS Compound VI Floor Teynampet Chennai 600 018

¶35

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Additional Charge) (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Teynampet

¶36

Chennai 600 018

¶37

3 N. Arumugam

¶38

4 N. Muthusamy 5 K. Rajasekaran Respondents W.A. No.3203 of 2023:

¶39

The Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Smt. S. Lakshmi having office at Padalam 603 309 Kancheepuram District Appellant

¶40

¶41

1 The Additional Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) DMS Compound VI Floor Teynampet Chennai 600 018

¶42

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Additional Charge) (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Teynampet Chennai 600 018

¶43

3 N. Venkatesan

¶44

4 G. Kathavarayan

¶45

5 G. Shanmugam

¶46

6 S. Rashya 7 E. Thulukkanam

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

8 K. Sundaresan

¶49

3/12

¶50

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶51

9 C. Venu 10 P. Vedagiri

¶52

11 J. Jaganathan

¶53

12 P. Muralidoss

¶54

13 B. Rukmangathan

¶55

14 M. Chandrasekar

¶56

15 K. Manoharan

¶57

16 A. Padmanabhan

¶58

17 V. Kuppusamy

¶59

18 L. Kannabiran

¶60

19 P. Subramanian

¶61

Respondents

¶62

W.A. No.3207 of 2023:

¶63

The Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Smt. S. Lakshmi having office at Padalam 603 309 Kancheepuram District Appellant v

¶64

1 The Additional Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) DMS Compound VI Floor Teynampet

¶65

Chennai 600 018

¶66

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Additional Charge) (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Teynampet

¶67

Chennai 600 018

¶68

3 M. Elumalai

¶69

4 V. Muthu Krishnan

¶70

5 S. Thirumalai

¶71

6 R. Durai Raj

¶72

7 V. Venu

¶73

8 D. Dhanapal (Retd.)

¶74

9 N. Veeraraghavan

¶75

10 M. Govindaraj

¶76

11 A. Sundarambal

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

12 M. Thulukkanam

¶79

4/12

¶80

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶81

13 P.E. Govindan (Retd.) 14 V. Perumal 15 M. Gopal 16 R. Dhanapal 17 M. Vedachalam 18 N. Kuselan 19 A. Kasthuri 20 R. Chakkaravarthi 21 M. Muthu 22 K. Raji 23 E. Perumal 24 S. Selvaraj

¶82

Respondents

¶83

W.A. No.3208 of 2023:

¶84

The Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Smt. S. Lakshmi having office at Padalam 603 309 Kancheepuram District

¶85

Appellant

¶86

¶87

1 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Teynampet Chennai 600 018

¶88

2 R. Pasupathi 3 Pabel 4 P. Mari

¶89

5 P. Muthu 6 J. Krishnan

¶90

7 C. Kanniappan

¶91

8 T. Chokkalingam

¶92

9 M. Krishnan

¶93

10 V. Chinnapaiyan @ Chinnappan

¶94

11 A. Krishnan

¶95

12 P.K. Vijayakumar

¶96

13 A. Gunasundari

¶97

14 K. Elumalai

¶98

15 A. Muniammal

¶99

16 P. Madurai 17 N. Gnanamani

¶100

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶101

5/12

¶102

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶103

18 Jaalammal 19 J. Thanikkachalam 20 V. Epsiviolate 21 R. Raji 22 M. Jayamani 23 S. Rajeswari 24 G. Bharathiraja 25 R. Vijayalakshmi 26 R. Rani

¶104

27 T. Kalavathi

¶105

28 E. Anjalatchi

¶106

29 A. Pachai Ammal 30 M. Venkatesan 31 D. Kanchana

¶107

Respondents

¶108

W.A. No.3213 of 2023:

¶109

The Madurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Smt. S. Lakshmi having office at Padalam 603 309 Kancheepuram District Appellant

¶110

¶111

1 The Additional Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) DMS Compound VI Floor Teynampet Chennai 600 018

¶112

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Additional Charge) (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Teynampet

¶113

Chennai 600 018

¶114

3 V. Mani

¶115

4 S. Kumar

¶116

5 S. Thiruvengadam

¶117

6 P. Jakkammal

¶118

7 K. Saraswathi

¶119

8 N. Durairaj

¶120

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶121

9 V. Ramesh

¶122

6/12

¶123

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶124

10 M. Haridoss 11 R. Vedachalam 12 J. Venugopal 13 R. Harikrishnan 14 E. Ravi 15 B. Kothandaraman 16 B. Elumalai 17 G. Kannivelu 18 E. Samikannu 19 R. Chidambaram

¶125

Respondents

¶126

Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 07.07.2023 passed in W.P. Nos.27331, 27553, 27530, 27324,

¶127

27520 and 27578 of 2018.

¶128

For appellants in Mr. Haja Nazeerudeen all writ appeals Addl. Adv. General assisted by Mr. P. Hari Babu

¶129

For private respondents Mr. P.B. Suresh Babu in all writ appeals

¶130

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶131

(delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.)

¶132

Inasmuch as all these writ appeals emerge from a common order of a

¶133

Single Bench, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.

¶134

2 For the sake of clarity, the parties will be adverted to as per their

¶135

rank in these writ appeals.

¶136

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶137

7/12

¶138

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶139

3 A bird's eye view of the facts leading to the institution of these writ appeals is as under:

¶140

The private respondents, on the ground that they were employed as cane farm labourers under the appellant mill, having completed 240 days of continuous service in a year and eligible for Gratuity benefits as per Section 2(e) and 2(A)1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, preferred claim petitions before the second respondent (Controlling Authority) in 2012 seeking payment of Gratuity, which were allowed vide order dated 10.07.2015 granting 15 days Gratuity per year of service for the period of their employment along with interest @ 10% p.a. for delayed payment of Gratuity. The said order of the second respondent was appealed against by the appellant mill before the first respondent (Appellate Authority), who, vide order dated 22.03.2018, confirmed the order of the second respondent, assailing the correctness of which, the sugar mill preferred writ petitions, which were dismissed by the Single Bench vide common order dated 07.07.2023. Thereagainst, the sugar mill has preferred the instant writ appeals.

¶141

4 Heard Mr. Haja Nazeerudeen, learned Additional Advocate

¶142

General representing Mr. P. Hari Babu, learned counsel for the appellant mill https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and Mr. P.B. Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the private respondents. 8/12

¶143

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶144

¶145

5 The learned Additional Advocate General contended that:

¶146

➢ the appellant mill is a research-oriented one and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is not applicable to the appellant mill;

¶147

➢ the private respondents, who are so-called farm workers, are not entitled to Gratuity as the same is not applicable to them;

¶148

➢ at the most, the private respondents could be treated as seasonal workmen and they are not entitled to Gratuity for 15 days per year and in terms of clarificatory letter dated 12.05.2015, they would be entitled to only 7 days wages for every completed year of service and the said submission is without prejudice to his contention that neither G.O.(Ms.) No.15, Industries (MIC 2) Department dated 30.01.2005 nor the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is applicable to the appellant mill.

¶149

6 The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, based on

¶150

the evidence produced before them, came to the conclusion that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is applicable to the appellant mill; it cannot be construed as a seasonal establishment and that the private respondents are entitled to Gratuity @ 15 days wages for every completed year of service.

¶151

7 It is to be noted that even though the appellant mill has taken a

¶152

stand that the private respondents are causal labourers engaged on seasonal basis, no shred or iota of evidence was let in before the Controlling and Appellate Authorities for them to conclude that the private respondents were 9/12

¶153

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶154

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶155

employed only seasonally. The contention of the appellant mill that the private respondents had not worked for the required number of days cannot be countenanced, as the documents are with the appellant mill and they should have produced all the documents when they take a plea that the private respondents had not completed 240 days of continuous service every year entitling them to get Gratuity. Since the appellant mill cannot be termed as a seasonal establishment and the private respondents also cannot be treated as seasonal workmen, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is applicable to the appellant mill and as a sequel, the private respondents are entitled to Gratuity in terms of the said Act.

¶156

8 Both the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority have rightly held that the private respondents are entitled to Gratuity @ 15 days wages for every completed year of service. The clarificatory letter dated 12.05.2015 issued by the Director of Sugar produced by the learned counsel for the appellant mill also is in favour of the private respondents.

¶157

9 As already adverted to above, since the appellant mill is not a

¶158

seasonal establishment and there is no evidence to show that the private respondents were only seasonal labourers, we are of the view that the common

¶159

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis order of the Single Bench confirming the orders of the second and first 10/12

¶160

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶161

respondents granting 15 days wages as Gratuity for every completed year of service and also interest @ 10% p.a. for delayed payment of Gratuity, is perfectly valid warranting no interference by us.

¶162

10 It is represented by the learned Additional Advocate General that pursuant to the orders of the second respondent, the entire amount has been deposited by the appellant mill, since deposit of the amount determined, is mandatory before filing an appeal.

¶163

11 Now that the order passed by the Single Bench confirming the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority is upheld by us, the amount lying in deposit shall be disbursed to the private respondents, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this common judgment.

¶164

These writ appeals stand dismissed with the above direction. Costs made

¶165

easy. Connected C.M.Ps. stand closed.

¶166

(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 21.11.2023

¶167

cad

¶168

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶169

11/12

¶170

W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203,3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶171

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

¶172

and K. RAJASEKAR., J. cad

¶173

¶174

1 The Additional Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) DMS Compound VI Floor Teynampet Chennai 600 018

¶175

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Additional Charge) (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Teynampet Chennai 600 018

¶176

Common order in W.A. No.3200, 3201, 3203, 3207, 3208 & 3213 of 2023

¶177

21.11.2023

¶178

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶179

12/12

M/s.The Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Addl. Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.The Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Addl. Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Great Lakes Multi-State Cooperative Vs S.P.Vairavan

The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. Vs M.Veerasamy

V.U.Maruthachalam Vs The District Collector

S.Venkatesan Vs the Registrar General

The managment Vs M.Vsudevan

Dhanapal, Vs The District Collector