Disposed

The Secretary, v. the Controlling Authority-Cum-Labour Officer(Enforcement)

Madras HC15 Apr 2024WP/6261/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A market committee challenged a gratuity award to a retired Market Superintendent that counted his full casual labourer service and contained an arithmetic error. Both sides agreed he was entitled to Rs.6,19,988/-, computed on regular service plus half of casual labourer service. The court disposed of the writ directing payment within twelve weeks with statutory interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Secretary, Vs the Controlling… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.03.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶5

W.P.No.6261 of 2024

¶6

and W.M.P.No.6960 of 2024

¶7

The Secretary, Pondicherry Market Committee, Agricultural Complex, Thattanchavady, Puducherry – 605 009.

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Controlling Authority-cum-Labour Officer (Enforcement), (under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Puducherry.

¶11

2.R.V.Ramamoorthy … Respondents

¶12

PARYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the 1^st respondent in G.a.No.122/2018 and to quash the same as illegal and direct the 1^st respondent to recalculate the actual gratuity amount by rectifying the arithmetical calculation error and excluding half of the CLR service period and to pass such further order.

¶13

1/7

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan Government Advocate (Pondy) For Respondents : Mr.B.Bala Vijayan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the first respondent in G.A.No.122/2018 and direct the 1^st respondent to recalculate the actual gratuity amount by rectifying the arithmetic calculation error and excluding half of the casual labour service period.

¶18

The petitioner is Secretary Pondicherry Market Committee of Puducherry. The second respondent joined the petitioner organisation as a casual labourer on 01.04.1981. Thereafter, his services were regularised with effect from 23.07.1986 and got retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.12.2016. By the time he was holding the post of Market Superintendent Grade - I. He has totally put up 5 years 3 months 22 days as a casual labourer prior to his regularisation subsequently with effect from 23.07.1986 to 31.12.2016, he has put up 30 years 5 months and 9 days of regular service.

¶19

2/7

¶20

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

¶21

The second respondent initiated proceedings before the first respondent under Section 7(4) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for settlement of gratuity dues. The first respondent has taken the service of the petitioner as a contract labourer prior to his regularisation als and while passing the impugned order has also made an arithmetic calculation mistake by showing 7,80,420.60 instead of 7,15,369.05, a sum equivalent to 21677.85 X 33. Thereby, the petitioner Marketing Committee has filed this Writ Petition for a direction to set aside the said proceedings.

¶22

No counter was filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

¶24

counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record before this Court.

¶25

During the course of the submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent services were regularised with effect from 23.07.1986, though he joined as casual labourer on 01.04.1981. Therefore, the period of service from 01.04.1981 until 23.07.1986, the period which the second respondent worked as a casual labourer cannot be calculated

¶26

3/7

¶27

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

¶28

for the purpose of gratuity. The second respondent retired from service on 31.12.2016. Therefore, the total period that can be calculated for the purpose

¶29

of gratuity is from 23.07.1986 to 31.12.2016 which comes to 30 years 5 months and 9 days as regular service and half of the service rendered as casual labour from 01.04.1981 to 22.07.1988 which runs upto 2 years 8 months and 6 days. Therefore, the total services of 33 years has to be taken for consideration for calculation of gratuity. Thereby, 33 years period will have to be converted into 66-six monthly period for the purpose of calculation of gratuity. Therefore, the total money to be paid to the second respondent is as follows:-

¶30

CALCULATION OF GRATUITY PAYABLE TO THIRU. R.V.RAMAMOORTHY, MARKET SUPERINTENDENT Gr.I (RETIRED)

¶31

1.Pay as on 31.12.2016 Rs.13,900 2.Grade Pay Rs.2,800 3.Dearness allowances Rs.20,875

¶32

4.Date of joining in service as CLR 01.04.1981 5.Date of joining in service as Regular 23.07.1986

¶33

6.Date of retirement from service 31.12.2016 7.Completed years of service 66 – six monthly periods

¶34

4/7

¶35

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

¶36

8.Mode of calculation Emoluments x 14 x six- monthly periods of qualifying service

¶37

9. Amount payable as per the formula = 37,575 x ¼ x 66 = 6,19,988/-

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent have

¶39

accepted, that the second respondent is entitled for gratuity to a tune of Rs.6,19,988/-. However, learned counsel for the petitioner requested reasonable time to be granted for the petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs.6,19,988/-.

¶40

On hearing the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on both sides and on taking into consideration of the financial consideration of the petitioner Marketing Committee, the said Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner Marketing Committee to pay the sum of Rs.6,19,988/towards the gratuity to the second respondent as quickly as possible but not later than twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with statutory interest. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

15.04.2024

¶42

gba Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶43

5/7

¶44

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

D. NAGARJUN,J.

Gba

The Controlling Authority-cum-Labour Officer (Enforcement), (under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Puducherry.

¶49

W.P.No.6261 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.6960 of 2024

¶50

15.04.2024

¶51

6/7

¶52

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

¶53

(1/4)

¶54

7/7

¶55

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

The Secretary, v. the Controlling Authority-Cum-Labour Officer(Enforcement)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Secretary, v. the Controlling Authority-Cum-Labour Officer(Enforcement)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs The Presiding Officer

Srinivasan Durgachalam Vs the Management

M.Amsaraj Vs the Management

The Secretary, Vs the Controlling Authority-Cum-Labour Officer(Enforcement)

The Secretary, Vs the Controlling Authority-Cum-Labour Officer(Enforcement)

The General Manager Vs N.Vijaya Kumar