Writ petition seeking quashing of an appellate order reducing gratuity. Court sustained the reduction based on employer's plea disputing service start date despite prior findings granting twenty years of service, dismissing the petition.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.11136 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.11136 of 2016
A.Murthy
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 29.01.2016 made in AGA No.27 of 2015 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same, consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to settle the gratuity as per the order dated 18.02.2015 made in PGA No.47 of 2013 passed by the 2nd respondent.
1/6
W.P.No.11136 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.John T. Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader [R1 & R2] Mr.C.E.Pratap [R3]
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 29.01.2016 made in AGA No.27 of 2015 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently, to direct the third respondent to settle the gratuity as per the order dated 18.02.2015 made in PGA No.47 of 2013 passed by the second respondent.
in PGA No.47 of 2013 under Section 7(4)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
W.P.No.11136 of 2016
1972 (in short 'the Act') before the second respondent as if the petitioner
rendered service of 21 years. However, the third respondent Management
resisted his claimed as if the petitioner entered the service in the year 2002 and the third respondent Management is not coming under the purview of the Act, since they have employed less than eight persons only. However, the second respondent refused to accept the said submissions made by the third respondent and arrived a conclusion that the petitioner rendered service of 20 years by order dated 18.02.2015. Accordingly, they calculated the gratuity amount at Rs.1,00,558/-. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent filed an appeal in
AGA No.27 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent under Section 7(7) of the Act and the said appeal was allowed in part by reducing the period of employment of the petitioner from 20 years to 11 years and the first respondent reduced the gratuity amount from 1,00,558/- to Rs.55,307/- by order dated 29.01.2016. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the above writ petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner
entered the service in the year 1992, however, the documents to prove the same is available only with the third respondent Management. Hence, he is not able to substantiate the claim that he entered the service in the year 1992 itself, since
W.P.No.11136 of 2016
the third respondent Management made a plea before the authorities that the petitioner had entered the service in the year 2002. Based on the said plea, the first respondent reduced the gratuity amount, which is not sustainable, even though the petitioner is entitled for gratuity amount for a period of 20 years as ordered by the second respondent. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent Management submits that, the third respondent Management is not an 'Establishment' as defined under the Act, since the employees of the third respondent Management does not exceed the maximum of eight employees at any point of time. He also submits that, the first respondent has rightly reduced the gratuity amount for a period from 20 years to 11 years by considering the stand taken by the third respondent Management that the petitioner joined the service in the year 2002, which is sustainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the above writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
4/6
W.P.No.11136 of 2016
6. A perusal of the available records reveals that, the petitioner raised a
claim before the second respondent for payment of gratuity amount as if he had rendered service from the year 1992 to 2012. The second respondent by accepting the said plea raised by the petitioner, awarded gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,558/- as if the petitioner rendered service for a period of 20 years, even though the petitioner has not produced any documents before the authorities to substantiate the same. Therefore, the third respondent Management preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent, by considering the submissions made by the third respondent Management that the petitioner had entered the service in the year 2012, has rightly reduced the gratuity amount from Rs.1,00,558/- to Rs.55,307/-. On the score, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
10.07.2023
Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No sp
5/6
W.P.No.11136 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp
To
W.P.No.11136 of 2016
10.07.2023
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the classification of the establishment as non-subject to the Act despite prior findings to the contrary.
Whether the appellate authority correctly reduced the period of service based on the employer's plea regarding the commencement date of service.
Whether the High Court is inclined to grant a writ of certiorari to quash the appellate order reducing gratuity payable.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A. Murthy
The Joint Commissioner of Labour/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Coimbatore
The Assistant Commissioner, Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Salem
P. Balasubramaniam, Proprietor, S.P. Palaniappa Mudaliar & Sons
M. DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
