Dismissed¶47

The General Manager, v. a.Vanaja Muniyan

Madras HC9 Apr 2026WP/29325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 — Sections 2A(1), 4(6), 7(4) — continuous service — break in service — five years' absence on medical leave treated as non-serving period by employer's post-retirement order dated 16.02.2021 — post-retirement orders not binding; no master-servant relationship after superannuation — gratuity payable for entire 30 years of service — certiorari under Article 226 dismissed — State Express Transport Corporation TN Ltd — Conductor, Puducherry Depot — Controlling Authority/Labour Officer (Enforcement), Puducherry award upheld — balance gratuity Rs.1,30,844/- with 10% interest — Tahsildar proceedings 3298/TOP/D/RR/2024.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed, leaving the impugned gratuity award intact. ¶47

The General Manager, Vs a.Vanaja Muniyan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed, leaving the impugned gratuity award intact.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the period of about five years during which the 1st respondent remained absent on medical leave during service constitutes a break in service, so that gratuity is payable only for 25 years of service and not for the entire 30 years. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

The Labour Court, considering sections 2A(1) and 4(6) of the Gratuity Act, concluded that the petitioner passed no order giving break in service and there was no termination of the 1st respondent's service on any ground specified under Section 4(6); the service of the 1st respondent was therefore rightly construed as continuous, and the entire period of service is taken into account for determination of gratuity.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Subsequent orders passed after retirement are not binding on the 1st respondent; after retirement there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, and in the absence of any such relationship the order declaring the absented period as non-serving period is not sustainable and not admissible.

¶41

Key takeaways

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court; the writ petition is dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 by which the General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation TN Ltd sought certiorari to quash (i) the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in G.A.No. 81 of 2019 dated 18.08.2023 awarding a retired Conductor balance gratuity of Rs.1,30,844/- with interest at 10% per annum, and (ii) the Tahsildar's proceedings No. 3298/TOP/D/RR/2024 dated 08.08.2024. The employee served from 07.04.1989 until superannuation on 31.05.2019, rendering 30 years of service; the Corporation paid gratuity of Rs.6,54,231/- on 16.02.2021 computing only 25 years, excluding about five years of absence on medical leave, by an order passed after retirement. Held: orders passed after retirement are not binding on the employee; no master-servant relationship survives retirement; the employer had passed no order of break in service nor terminated service on any ground under Section 4(6) of the Gratuity Act; the Labour Court therefore rightly construed the service as continuous under Sections 2A(1) and 4(6), taking the entire period into account for gratuity. Writ petition dismissed, no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

WP No. 29325 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP No. 29325 of 2024 & WMP Nos. 31978 & 31977 of 2024

¶7

The General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation Tn Ltd, Pallavan Salai, Chennai -2.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

A.Vanaja Muniyan, No. 5, Thillai Nagar, Bhuvanagiri T.K, Cuddalore -608 601.

¶11

The Controlling Authority, Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972cum-labour Officer(enforcement), Puducherry.

¶12

The Branch Manager, M/s. State Express Transport Corporation TN Ltd, Maraimalaiadigal Salai, Puducherry.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Government Of Pudhucherry, Taluk Office, Pudhucherry, 100 Feet Road, Mudaliarpet, Pudhucherry -605 004.

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in G.A.No. 81 of 2019 dated 18.08.2023 and also order passed by the 4th respondent in proceedings number 3298/TOP/D/RR/2024 dated 08.08.2024 and quash the same .

¶16

Page1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 29325 of 2024

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.S.Santhosa Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr. B.K. Girish Neelakantan, for R1 Mr.V. Usha, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 to R4

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to

¶22

call for the records of the 2nd respondent in G.A.No. 81 of 2019 dated 18.08.2023 and also order passed by the 4th respondent in proceedings number 3298/TOP/D/RR/2024 dated 08.08.2024 and quash the same .

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent was employed with the petitioner Corporation as a Conductor in Puducherry Depot. He was appointed on 07.04.1989. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2019 and he rendered totally 30 years of service with the 3rd respondent Depot. While the 1^st respondent was in service, he took medical leave for the period of five years and thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2019, he got retired from his service. After retirement, excepting his gratuity payment, all the payments due to him were paid. On 16.02.2021, for the purpose of payment of gratuity, his period of service was calculated as 25 years ,the gratuity amount of Rs.6,54,231/- was paid to her for the reason that the employer has been absenting himself from

¶24

Page2 of 7

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 29325 of 2024

¶27

duty during his service period to the tenure of 5 years, hence, treating the absenting period of 5 years as not servicing period, the same has not been included while calculating the gratuity payable to him. Without challenging the order passed by the petitioner, the 1st respondent approached the 2^nd respondent claimed a gratuity of Rs.11,83,731/- for the entire period of her service under section 7(4)of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the same was allowed by the 2^nd respondent by awarding Rs.1,30,844/ towards balance gratuity along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of retirement and till the date of payment.

¶28

It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1^st worked from 07.04.1989 till 31.05.2019 and during the course of his service, he took medical leave and did not come for employment intermittently from 1989-1990, 19901991, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 & 2018-2019 which comes around five years and therefore, gratuity was calculated by deducting the above said period treating it as non serving period as he is not entitled for payment of gratuity for such period. It is the case of the petitioner that by calculating the service of the 1^st respondent herein, gratuity was accordingly calculated for the above period which was not rendered by her. The 2^nd respondent has failed to take note of the fact that while granting pension payment order, the petitioner has specifically stated that the period of 5 years shall not be calculated for service and the said order was not challenged by the 1^st respondent/employer, however,

¶29

Page3 of 7

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 29325 of 2024

¶32

the 2^nd respondent without considering the 5 years break in service and without cancelling the service of the 1^st respondent/employer for such non serving period, erroneously passed an order granting gratuity by including such

¶33

non serving period of 5 years . Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the 1st respondent made an application for medical leave on medical ground for a period of five years and thereby the 5 years services were not regularised by the petitioner, however without considering the 5 years break in service, the 2^nd respondent has ordered as it is, hence the claim of the 1^st respondent is not sustainable one and accordingly he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that the Labour Court after proper adjudication of the facts and circumstances of the case, and after considering the fact that the petitioner neither passed any order giving break in service nor passed any order terminating the 1^st respondent from service for his authorised absence, construed his services as continuous service and rightly awarded gratuity for his entire period of service. Hence the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent is correct and is in order, therefore, the same is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

¶36

__________ Page4 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 29325 of 2024

¶39

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶40

Admittedly, the 1st respondent rendered 30 years of service, however

¶41

the gratuity amount was not paid for 30 years of service, thereby, the petitioner has made an application before the 2nd respondent for claiming the gratuity. The 2^nd respondent after proper adjudication of the facts of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,844/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of deposit. Now, the petitioner claims that there was a break in service during her service for a period of 5 years and the same was taken into consideration and accordingly gratuity was calculated and the order was passed on 16.02.2021. However, subsequent orders after the retirement is not binding on the 1st respondent. After retirement, there is no Master and Servant relationship in between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. In the absence of any relationship , passing the order declaring the absented period as non serving period is not sustainable one and also not admissible one.

¶42

Moreover, the said issue has been elaborately dealt with by the 2^nd respondent/Labour Court by considering sections 2A(1) and 4(6) of the Gratuity Act and accordingly, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not passed any order for break in service and also there was no termination of

¶43

service of the 1^st respondent on any of the grounds specified under Section

¶44

Page5 of 7

¶45

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

¶46

WP No. 29325 of 2024

¶47

4(6) of the Gratuity Act. In the circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly construed the service of the 1^st respondent as continuous, as such, the entire period of service of the 1^st respondent is taken into account for the purpose of determination of gratuity. In such a view of the matter, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶48

09-04-2026

¶49

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶50

msr

¶51

¶52