Partly allowed¶67

Palanivelu K v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Oct 2025WP(MD)/21703/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972; Controlling Authority; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd; gratuity interest reduced from 10% to 8.5%; WA(MD)No.1000 of 2015; reinstatement with continuity of service; notional reinstatement; full length of service reckoned; Section 17-B I.D.Act wages; PG.No.85 of 2011/2021; writ of mandamus and certiorari under Article 226; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice B.Pugalendhi; decided 09.10.2025; compliance within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions partly allowed: Management directed to pay the gratuity amount with 8.5% interest (reduced from 10%) within twelve weeks; workman permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited before the Controlling Authority; balance payable with interest; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶67

Palanivelu K Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the workman, who allegedly failed to join duty despite repeated reminders from the year 2002, is entitled to gratuity for the period from 2002, in light of the Division Bench's directions on reinstatement with continuity of service. +1 more

¶57

Court's answer

In view of the Division Bench's directions (reinstatement with continuity of service and computation of benefits on the full length of service), the court declined to consider the Management's case against the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, thereby upholding the workman's gratuity entitlement.

¶67

Ratio / Principle

The interest portion was modified from 10% to 8.5%, and the Management was directed to pay the gratuity amount together with 8.5% interest to the workman within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶67

Key takeaways

The workman was permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited by the Management before the Controlling Authority; the balance amount is to be paid with interest as directed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cross writ petitions by a workman (K.Palanivelu) and the Management (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd) arising out of the Controlling Authority's gratuity order in PG.No.85 (dated 12.03.2019 per the court's narrative; the prayers refer to PG.No.85 of 2011 dated 29.08.2017). In view of the Division Bench's ruling in WA(MD)No.1000 of 2015 (order dated 30.06.2021) granting reinstatement with continuity of service and computation of benefits on the full length of service, the court rejected the Management's contention that the workman, having not joined duty from 2002, was not entitled to gratuity for the post-2002 period. The interest component was reduced from 10% to 8.5%; the Management was directed to pay the gratuity with 8.5% interest within twelve weeks; the workman was permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited before the Controlling Authority, with the balance payable with interest. Both writ petitions were partly allowed.

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.18647 of 2021

¶7

in WP(MD)No.21703 of 2021

¶8

K.Palanivelu ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The District Collector,

¶11

Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar,

¶13

Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.

¶14

3.The Controlling Authority / The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,

¶15

(The Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972),

¶16

Madurai.

¶17

4.The Managing Director,

¶18

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Madurai Region, Bye-pass Road, Madurai.

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

1/9

¶21

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

¶22

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶23

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to recover the balance gratuity amount of Rs.1,65,015/together with 10% interest, payable to the petitioner from the 4^th respondent as per the order dated 29.08.2017 in PG.NO.85 of 2011 of the 3^rd respondent and also as requested in his certificate dated 12.03.2019 within a period of time as may be fixed by this court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar Nos.1 to 3 Specical Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah No.4

¶25

in WP(MD)No.22039 of 2021

¶26

The Management,

¶27

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Madurai Ltd, Rep by its General Manager, Byepass Road, Madurai. ... Petitioner

... Petitioner

1.K.Palanivelu

2.The Controlling Authority /

¶32

for the payment of gratuity,

¶33

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. ...Respondents

¶34

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶35

of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in PG.No.85 of 2011 dated 29.08.2017 as illegal and quash the same.

¶36

2/9

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶39

For Petitioner	: Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
For Respondent	: Mr.C.Venkateshkumar
No.2	Specical Government Pleader
For Respondent	: Mr.S.Arunachalam
No.1

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

The transport corporation / Management has filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.22039 of 2021 as against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour / the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in PG.No.85 of 2021 dated 12.03.2019. The Workman has filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.21703 of 2021 seeking a direction to the Management to pay the gratuity amount together with 10% interest as directed by the Controlling Authority in PG.No.85 of 2021.

¶42

2.Since both these writ petitions are arising out of the order dated 12.03.2019 passed in PG.No.85 of 2021, they are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common order.

¶43

3/9

¶44

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

¶45

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶46

3.The Workman has raised an industrial dispute as against the

¶47

order of termination before the Labour Court and finally it has been settled by the Division Bench of this court in WA(MD)No.1000 of

¶48

2015 by order dated 30.06.2021 with the following directions:

¶49

“15. Thus, for all the above reasons,

¶50

(i)W.A.(MD) No.1000 of 2015 is allowed and the order dated 06.02.2013, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 761 of 2011, is set aside. Consequently, the order impugned in the writ petition, dated 16.02.2010, is quashed and the Management is directed to grant pension to the workman in the light of the award of reinstatement and continuity of service. However, the prayer for grant of interest on the arrears payable is rejected.

¶51

(ii) W.P.(MD) No.4641 of 2014 is dismissed confirming the order, dated 07.08.2013, passed in C.P.No.2 of 2011, by the Labour Court, Madurai and the wages computed shall be paid.

¶52

(iii) Needless to state that the workman is entitled for wages for the period from 17.02.1992 to 30.06.2006, after deducting the wages paid under Section 17-B of I.D.Act and consequently, other terminal benefits, including pension.

¶53

4/9

¶54

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

¶55

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶56

(iv) The above direction shall be complied with by the Management, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.(v)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶57

4.The main contention of the Management is that the workman failed to join duty despite repeated reminders by the management from the year 2002 and therefore, he is not entitled for gratuity for the period from the year 2002. However this contention of the petitioner has also been answered by the Division Bench as under:

¶58

“12. In any event, the award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service having become final, the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and consequently, all benefits should be computed by taking note of full length of service and the pension to be accordingly fixed. However, the workman is not entitled to any backwages for the period from 1974 to 1992 as the award of 50% backwages was set aside by the learned Writ Court and the workman had not challenged that portion of the award. The order, which was impugned in the writ petition filed by the

¶59

5/9

¶60

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

¶61

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶62

workman, dated 16.02.2010, is an outcome of wrong understanding of facts and misconception. The Management has glossed over the important portion of the relief granted by the Labour Court i.e.the relief of continuity of service while ordering reinstatement. This order having attained finality, the Management cannot escape from the rigor of such order nor they can contend that the workman has to be treated as a fresh entrant. Furthermore, the Management would not be justified in alleging that the workman did not report for duty in spite of three communications sent by the Management. If such was the true state of affairs, nothing prevented the Management from initiating fresh disciplinary action against the workman, which they did not do. On the contrary, they continued to pay wages under Section 17-B of I.D.Act and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it can be clearly inferred that the Management was not willing to reinstate the workman. Hence, the workman is entitled to be reinstated notionally and the entire length of service should be reckoned and his pay and allowance shall be fixed at the appropriate stages and consequently, the pension shall also be properly fixed and to be paid.”

¶63

6/9

¶64

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

¶65

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶66

5.In view of the above direction, this court is not inclined to

¶67

consider the case of the Management as against the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. However the request of the Management with regard to the interest portion has to be considered and the interest portion is modified as 8.5% instead of 10%. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the Workman is partly allowed and the writ petition filed by the Management is also partly allowed with a direction to the Management to pay the gratuity amount together with 8.5% to the workman within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The workman is permitted to withdraw the amount, which had already been deposited by the Management before the Controlling Authority and the balance amount has to be paid with interest by the management to the Workman as directed above. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.10.2025

DSK

7/9

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

¶72

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶73

¶74

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶75

2.The Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District.

¶76

3.The Controlling Authority / The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,

¶77

(The Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Madurai.

¶78

4.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Madurai Region, Bye-pass Road, Madurai.

¶79

8/9

¶80

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

¶81

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶82

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶83

DSK

¶84

W.P(MD)Nos.21703 and 22039 of 2021

¶85

09.10.2025

¶86

9/9

¶87

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Gratuity order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in PG.No.85 of 2021 dated 12.03.2019 (described in the prayers as the order in PG.No.85 of 2011 dated 29.08.2017), out of which both writ petitions arise; challenged by the Management by certiorari and sought to be enforced by the workman by mandamus.¶41
Assistant Commissioner of Labour / the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act · 12.03.2019
Prior proceeding
The workman raised an industrial dispute against the order of termination before the Labour Court; it was finally settled by the Division Bench of this court in WA(MD)No.1000 of 2015 by order dated 30.06.2021 with directions.¶47
Prior proceeding
Division Bench allowed W.A.(MD) No.1000 of 2015, set aside the order dated 06.02.2013 in W.P.(MD) No. 761 of 2011, quashed the order dated 16.02.2010, directed the Management to grant pension in light of the award of reinstatement with continuity of service, and rejected the prayer for interest on arrears.¶50
Prior proceeding
Division Bench dismissed W.P.(MD) No.4641 of 2014, confirming the order dated 07.08.2013 in C.P.No.2 of 2011 of the Labour Court, Madurai; computed wages to be paid.¶51
Prior proceeding
Workman held entitled to wages for 17.02.1992 to 30.06.2006 after deducting wages paid under Section 17-B of I.D.Act, and to other terminal benefits including pension.¶52
Prior proceeding
Division Bench directed compliance within three months; no costs.¶56
Prior proceeding
Division Bench answered the Management's non-joining contention: the Labour Court award of reinstatement with continuity of service having become final, all benefits to be computed on full length of service; no backwages for 1974-1992; workman entitled to notional reinstatement with entire service reckoned and pay, allowance and pension fixed accordingly.¶58
Prior proceeding
The Management's certiorari prayer in WP(MD)No.22039 of 2021 targets the order in PG.No.85 of 2011 dated 29.08.2017; the workman's mandamus prayer references the same order dated 29.08.2017 in PG.NO.85 of 2011 of the 3rd respondent along with his certificate dated 12.03.2019.¶35

Palanivelu K v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanivelu K v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Sridhar Vs The Managing Director

Ethirajulu.N Vs The Secretary to Government

The Management Vs The Controlling Authority

Saravanan Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Ayyappan Textiles Limited Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

M/s. A.2731, The National Co.Op. Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II