Disposed

The Superintending Engineer v. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Madras HC16 Oct 2025WP(MD)/4030/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TANGEDCO challenged gratuity orders directing payment to retired workmen for their casual labour period, arguing exemption from the Payment of Gratuity Act and a separate pension scheme. The court noted the statutory appeal remedy under Section 7(7), the exemption's own dispute-resolution conditions, and disposed of the writ petitions with liberty to pursue appeals without insisting on limitation.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Superintending Engineer Vs the Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 16.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022 and WMP(MD)Nos.3459, 3460, 3461 and 3456 of 2022

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.4030 of 2022

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. ... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

¶11

(Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972),

¶12

Office of Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai – 2.

¶13

M.Abdul Hameed ... Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in P.G.No.44 of 2018 and quash its order dated 04.06.2019.

¶15

1/10

¶16

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

¶17

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶18

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Malini for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh, Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.G.Karthick, for M/s.T.Lajapathy Roy & Associates

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.4031 of 2022

¶20

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. ... Petitioner

¶21

versus

¶22

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

¶23

(Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972),

¶24

Office of Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai – 2.

¶25

V.Mariammal

¶26

... Respondents

¶27

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in P.G.No.45 of 2018 and quash its order dated 22.07.2019.

¶28

2/10

¶29

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

¶30

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶31

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Malini for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh, Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.G.Karthick, for M/s.T.Lajapathy Roy & Associates

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.4032 of 2022

¶33

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 007.

¶34

... Petitioner

¶35

versus

¶36

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

¶37

(Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972),

¶38

Office of Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai – 2.

¶39

V.Sethuraman ... Respondents

¶40

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in P.G.No.46 of 2018 and quash its order dated 04.06.2019.

¶41

3/10

¶42

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

¶43

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶44

For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh, Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.G.Karthick, for M/s.T.Lajapathy Roy & Associates

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.4033 of 2022

¶46

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. ... Petitioner

¶47

versus

¶48

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

¶49

(Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972),

¶50

Office of Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai – 2.

¶51

P.R.Suryakumar ... Respondents

¶52

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in P.G.No.119 of 2018 and quash its order dated 15.07.2019.

¶53

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Malini for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. For R1 : Mr.S.Vinodh, Government Advocate

¶54

4/10

¶55

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

¶56

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶57

For R2 : Mr.G.Karthick, for M/s.T.Lajapathy Roy & Associates

¶58

COMMON ORDER

¶59

TANGEDCO has filed all these writ petitions as against the orders passed by the first respondent/the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶60

The second respondent in all these writ petitions, workmen in TANGEDCO, have filed applications before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, seeking difference in the gratuity amount for their casual labour period. The first respondent has allowed all these applications filed by the workmen and directed TANGEDCO to pay the gratuity amount. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

¶61

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner TANGEDCO submits that the petitioner TANGEDCO was exempted from the provisions of the Payment of Gratutity Act, 1972, vide G.O.Ms.No.699 dated 16.03.1983. Further, the second respondents are covered under

¶62

5/10

¶63

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

¶64

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶65

separate Pension Scheme. Therefore, they are not entitled for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, the first respondent, without considering the same, has passed the above orders.

¶66

The learned counsel for the petitioner TANGEDCO further submits that while calculating the period of service, the first respondent has taken into account of G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, G.O.Ms.No.408 Finance (Pension) Department dated 25.08.2009 has been implemented by TANGEDCO only with effect from the month of September 2011. However, the first respondent/Gratuity Authority, by taking into account of G.O.Ms.No.408, has considered the case of the workmen, who retired from service from the year 2000, 2006 and 2010.

¶67

With regard to the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.4031 of 2022, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner TANGEDCO submits that they are not having any objection in this writ petition and they are inclined to implement the same. With regard to W.P.(MD)Nos.4030,

¶68

6/10

¶69

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

¶70

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶71

4032 and 4033 of 2022, the learned counsel for the petitioner TANGEDCO submits that they have questioned the impugned orders on the ground that the first respondent, without considering the exemption provided to the petitioner TANGEDCO from the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, has passed the impugned orders.

¶72

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that as against the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, a statutory appeal is available under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. However, without exhausting the statutory appeal remedy available under the Payment of Gratuity Act, these writ petitions have been filed.

¶73

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶74

In fact, TANGEDCO has been exempted from Payment of

¶75

Gratuity Act, 1972 vide G.O.Ms.No.699 dated 16.03.1983, on certain conditions and the same are extracted as under:

¶76

“(i) The exemption granted will not be applicable to

¶77

7/10

¶78

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

¶79

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶80

such of those employees of the Board, who do not come within the Pension Scheme of the Board;

¶81

(ii) If any dispute arises with regard to the implementation of the Scheme, the controlling authority and the appellate authority shall have the powers to intervene and determine it as required under the said Act.

¶82

(iii) If any change is to be made in the provisions of the scheme, prior permission of the Government of Tamil Nadu shall be obtained.”

¶83

Even, in this Government Order, it is made clear that if any dispute arises with regard to the implementation of scheme, the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority shall have the powers to determine it under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Further, statutory appeal remedy is availabe under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶84

In view of the same, all these writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner TANGEDCO to workout their remedy in the statutory appeal available under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. If such appeals are filed by the petitioner TANGEDCO, the

¶85

8/10

¶86

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

¶87

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶88

appellate authority shall entertain the same without insisting on limitation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶89

16.10.2025

¶90

ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No.

¶91

¶92

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

¶93

(Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972),

¶94

Office of Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai – 2.

¶95

9/10

¶96

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

¶97

WP(MD)Nos.4030 to 4033 of 2022

¶98

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶99

ogy

¶100

WP(MD) No.4030 of 2022

¶101

16.10.2025

¶102

10/10

¶103

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

The Superintending Engineer v. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Superintending Engineer v. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour

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

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/s.A-1237 Kulalakundu Agricultural Service

M/s. Amman Chamber Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

The Management, Vs the Appellate Authority Under

The Management Vs General Secretary

The Managing Director Vs Sahadevan. a

Saravanakumar Vs Jayaraman