Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3493
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
The Management of MRF Ltd., Rep. By its Plant Manager
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Another
W.P.No.23699 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 02-08-2011
For the Petitioner:Sanjay Mohan for M/s. Ramasubramaniam Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents:R2 - V.P. Rajendran, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a mere nomination does not confer any beneficial interest to the nominee, and the nominee has the duty to disburse the amount among the legally entitled legal heirs.
Headnote:
Legal Heir - Labour Dispute - Certified Standing Orders, Payment of Gratuity Act, Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to legal heirs, nomination forms, and the rights of nominees. The court highlighted the definition of legal heir under the Certified Standing Orders and the role of nominees in disbursing amounts to legal heirs. The court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt.Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt.Usha Devi to emphasize that a mere nomination does not confer any beneficial interest to the nominee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, MRF Limited, challenged an order directing them to pay 1/3rd of the amount due to the late employee to his mother, the second respondent, despite the amount being paid to the employee's wife, the nominee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second respondent, as a legal heir, was entitled to the amount due, and the nomination of the wife as the nominee did not confer any additional right to avail the benefits. The court held that the nominee has the duty to disburse the amount among the legally entitled legal heirs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the second respondent as a legal heir, the validity of the nomination, and the role of the nominee in disbursing the amount to legal heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the second respondent, as a legal heir, was entitled to the amount due, and the nomination of the wife as the nominee did not confer any additional right to avail the benefits. The court emphasized that the nominee has the duty to disburse the amount among the legally entitled legal heirs.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The court directed that the dismissal of the writ petition would not dis-entitle the second respondent from proceeding against the wife of the late employee in the manner known to law.
1. The petitioner is the Management of MRF Limited. They have filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.469 of 2005 dated 18.09.2009.
2. By the impugned order, the Labour Court held that the second respondent, who is the mother of late M.Vijayakumar is entitled to get 1/3rd of the amount due and payable to the said Vijayakumar, who was an employee of the petitioner Management. Since the Management had paid the entire dues to the late Vijayakumar's wife Mrs.Rajalakshmi, the Management was directed to recover 1/3rd of the amount from the said Rajalakshmi and pay it to the second respondent. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 19.11.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, no attempt was made to extend the interim order.
4. However, when the matter came up before this Court, Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for M/s.Ramasubramaniam and Associates, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of Tyres at Thiruvottiyur. M.Vijayakumar joined the services of the petitioner Company as an Apprentice on 15.06.1998 and his services were confirmed on 15.12.2000. On 14.08.2003, when he was on duty, he met with an accident and despite medical treatment, he succumbed to injuries. During his service, the said Vijayakumar had submitted nomination forms to the petitioner company such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, MRF Social Welfare Committee, wherein, he had mentioned his mother Balamani as his nominee. He got married on 06.03.2003. Subsequent to his marriage, he submitted various nomination forms for changing his nomination. In these nomination forms, Vijayakumar had nominated his wife, Rajalakshmi as nominee and cancelled the earlier nomination made in favour of the second respondent. The nomination forms were acted upon and the amount standing to the credit of the late Vijayakumar as well as his terminal benefits were paid to his wife Rajalakshmi. The amounts worked out to Rs.7,25,743/-.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Certified Standing Orders the term 'Legal heir' has been defined, which refers to the widow of the deceased workmen; in the absence of the widow, the son or unmarried daughter of the deceased. It is only when those legal heirs are not available, then the father or mother can be the legal heirs.
6. When the second respondent sent a legal notice to the petitioner Company claiming 50% of the amount from the entire amount paid to the said Rajalakshmi, a reply was sent rejecting her request. The second respondent also filed a Gratuity Petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour -I, Chennai under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming 50% of the gratuity amount. Her Gratuity Application in P.G.No.116 of 2004 was dismissed on 20.12.2004. Her further appeal in P.G.A.No.40 of 2005 was also dismissed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai on 28.10.2005. Subsequently, the second respondent and her husband filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (Conciliation-II), Chennai claiming 2/3rd share from the amount paid to Mrs.Rajalakshmi and that was also rejected. It was thereafter, she has filed the claim petition before the Labour Court. The said claim petition was taken on file as C.P.No.469 of 2005 and notice was ordered to the petitioner Management.
7. The petitioner Management had filed a counter statement dated 04.12.2006 refuting the claim made by the second respondent. It was contended that since they had paid the amount to the nominee, who is the wife, no further claim can be made against the management.
8. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the second respondent, she examined herself as P.W.1 and on her side, 9 documents were filed and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-9. On the side of
