The Management, Vs the Authority Under the

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 1^st respondent in PG.Nos.78,79,105/2008, 7 of 2009, 11 of 2011 to 26 of 2011, quash the common order passed therein on 19.12.2016.

¶39

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Seenivasagam For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader For R2 to 21 : Mr.VOS.Kalaiselvam

¶40

2/6

¶41

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

¶42

WP(MD)No.4844 of 2017

¶43

ORDER

¶44

This writ petition is filed by the Management of District Central Co-Operative Bank, as against the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority has passed an order directing the Management to pay additional gratuity as per the terms of the agreement. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶45

Pending this writ petition, some other writ petitions were referred to the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court. The Hon'ble Full Bench, by order dated 30.10.2024 in W.P.(MD)Nos.4452 of 2013 and 23500 of 2016, etc. batch, has answered the reference as under:

¶46

“67. A careful cumulative analysis of provisions of law and the interpretations as observed above would indicate that a plain reading of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, would indicate that under Section 7(4)(a) of the Act, “if there any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act”, the said admissibility of such claim should be examined only by the Controlling Authority, as defined under Section 3 of the Act. This is the only interpretation possible, since Section 4(5) of the Act recognises the right of the employee to receive 'better terms of gratuity' under any award or agreement or contract with

¶47

3/6

¶48

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

¶49

WP(MD)No.4844 of 2017

¶50

the employer. Therefore, a dispute relating to the amount of gratuity payable would not only include the amount of gratuity payable as provided under Section 7(2) of the Act, but also as provided under Section 4(5) of the Act. ”

¶51

3.Challenging the same, the Management preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.12362 to 12366 of 2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on 13.05.2025, entertained the same and granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of order .

¶52

Admittedly, all the private respondents/employees have been paid the gratuity amount. However, they are claiming gratuity based on the agreement that they are entitled for gratuity for more number of years than their actual services as per the terms of the agreement. The issue has already been answered by the Hon'ble Full Bench and it is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶53

5.Since the issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the pendency of this writ petition before this Court would not serve any purpose. Therefore, this writ petition is closed with a direction to the 4/6

¶54

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

¶55

WP(MD)No.4844 of 2017

¶56

Management to settle the amount if any, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to the private respondents / employees, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶57

15.10.2025

¶58

NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶59

DSK

¶60

TO

¶61

1.The Management, RK 10 Virudhunagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer, Virudhunagar.

¶62