The Managing Director/ President Vs Anthony S

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in PG.No.98 of 2017 dated 22.03.2019 on the file of the Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul and quash the same as illegal.

¶14

1/10

¶15

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

¶16

WP.(MD)No.21213 of 2021

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam For Respondent : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh Legal Aid Counsel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed as against the order passed by the Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul in PG.No.98 of 2017 dated 22.03.2019.

¶20

2.The respondent, who was working as a Sweeper in Chinnadharapuram Panchayat, has filed the above claim petition before the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’] claiming gratuity as per Section 4 of the Act and the same was allowed, on 22.03.2019, against which, the panchayat has preferred this writ petition. In fact, the Panchayat is having statutory appeal as provided under Section 7(7) of the Act. However, without invoking the appeal remedy, this writ petition has been filed.

¶21

2/10

¶22

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

¶23

WP.(MD)No.21213 of 2021

¶24

3.The main contention of the petitioner is that the

¶25

respondent was a part time employee and he is not entitled for payment of gratuity. Other ground is that it is a statutory body, which is not covered under the Act.

¶26

4.Though the respondent has been served, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent and therefore, this Court by its earlier order dated 06.10.2025 has appointed Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh, learned counsel as a legal aid counsel for the respondent.

¶27

5.The learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the respondent by relying on the judgment of this Court in WP. (MD)Nos.1564 to 1567 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018 submits that this issue has already been decided by following the decision of this Court reported in 2004-III-LLJ (Commissioner, Sathyamangalam Municipality Vs. Deputy Commission of Labour, Salem and others) and relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-

¶28

2.The petitioner is the Village Panchayat President.

¶29

3/10

¶30

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

¶31

WP.(MD)No.21213 of 2021

¶32

The third respondent herein was the Panchayat employee. The third respondent after reaching the age of superannuation and retirement moved the Controlling Authority for settlement of his Gratuity dues. The Controlling Authority passed an order in his favour. The same was questioned before this Court, on the ground that the employee of Village Panchayat is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The issue is no longer res integra. This Court in the decision reported in 2004-III-LLJ (Commissioner, Sathyamangalam Municipality Vs. Deputy Commission of Labour, Salem and others) held that the Local Authority also an establishment liable under the Act to Pay gratuity. Therefore, the ground of jurisdiction is not available to the petitioner. On merits also, there is nothing to interfere. The Controlling Authority has taken the last drawn wages of the employee's account and computed the gratuity dues on that basis.

¶33

6.The learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent has also relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 6 SCC 103 (Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Vs. Mujib Ullah Khan) wherein it was held that local bodies are

¶34

4/10

¶35

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

¶36

WP.(MD)No.21213 of 2021

¶37

covered under the Act, in terms of Section 1(3)(c) of the Act and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder :-

¶38

“7.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the Central Government has published a notification in terms of Section 1(3)(c) of the Act on 08.01.1982 to extend the applicability of the Act to the Municipalities. Thus, the Act is applicable to the Municipalities. The relevant provisions of the Act read as under:

¶39

“1. Short title, extent, application and

¶40

commencement.-

¶41

(1) This Act may be called the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶42

(2) It extends to the whole of India:

¶43

Provided that in so far as it relates to plantations or ports, it shall not extend to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

¶44

(3) It shall apply to-

¶45

(a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company;

¶46

(b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the

¶47

5/10

¶48

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

¶49

WP.(MD)No.21213 of 2021

¶50

preceding twelve months;

¶51

(c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.”

¶52

8.A perusal of the above provisions would show that the Act is applicable to (1) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company; (2) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, the said provision has two conditions, viz. (i) a shop or establishments within the meaning of a State law and (ii) in which ten or more persons are employed; and (3) the establishments or class of establishments which Central Government may notify.

¶53

9.The appellant is not covered by clauses (a) and (b) of Section 1(3) of the Act. Clause (a) is not applicable on the face of the provisions, but even clause (b) is not applicable in view of Section 3 (c) of the 1962 Act as such Act is not applicable to the offices of the Government or local authorities. The Local Authorities means a municipal committee, district board etc or entrusted with the control

¶54

6/10

¶55

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

¶56

WP.(MD)No.21213 of 2021

¶57

or management of a municipal or local fund in terms of Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

¶58

10.In terms of the above said Section 1(3)(c) of the Act, the Central Government has published a notification on 08.01.1982 and specified Local Bodies in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months as a class of establishment to which this Act shall apply. The said notification dated 08.01.1982 reads as under:-

¶59

“ New Delhi, 8-1-1982 NOTIFICATION

¶60

S.O. No. 239….-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the Central Government hereby specified ‘local bodies’ in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day preceding twelve months, as a class of establishments to which the said Act shall apply with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

¶61

sd/. (R. K. A. Subrahmanya) Additional Secretary (F. No. S-70020/16/77-FPG)”

¶62

11.We find that the notification dated 08.01.1982 was not referred to before the High Court. Such notification makes it abundantly clear that the Act is applicable to the local bodies i.e., the Municipalities. Section 14 of the Act has given an overriding effect over

¶63

7/10

¶64

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

¶65

WP.(MD)No.21213 of 2021

¶66

any other inconsistent provision in any other enactment. The said provision reads as under:

¶67

“14.Act to override other enactments, etc. – The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.”

¶68

12. In view of Section 14 of the Act, the provision in the State Act contemplating payment of Gratuity will be inapplicable in respect of the employees of the local bodies.”

¶69

7.This Court has considered the submissions made on either

¶70

side and perused the available materials.

¶71

8.Though the learned counsel submitted that there is less than 10 employees in the panchayat and the authority, by taking the number of employees from the panchayat as one unit, has allowed the claim, during the course of enquiry before the Commissioner of Labour, the petitioner has not taken any plea that there is less than 10 employees are working in the panchayat. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the observation of the

¶72

8/10

¶73

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

¶74

WP.(MD)No.21213 of 2021

¶75

Commissioner of Labour in the impugned order as hereunder:-

¶76

“nkYk; 1972-k; tUl gzpf;bfhil gl;Lthlhr; rl;lk; gphpt[ 1(3)( c )-y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sthW 10 my;yJ mjw;F nkw;gl;l bjhHpyhsh;fs; gzpg[hpa[k; gl;rj;jpy; ,r;rl;lk; bghUe;Jk;. Vjph;kDjhuh; eph;thfj;jug;gpy; jq;fSila epWtdj;jpy; 10-f;Fk; Fiwthd gzpahsh;fns gzpg[hpe;jhh;fs; vd tprhrizapd; nghnjh> jq;fs; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l gjpYiuapnyh> thJiuapnyh kWg;g[ Vjk; bjhptpf;ftpy;iy. ”

¶77

9.In view of the above and also the decisions relied on by the learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶78

27.10.2025

¶79

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns To

¶80

The Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

¶81

9/10

¶82

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

¶83

WP.(MD)No.21213 of 2021