Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1464
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K.B.K. VASUKI, J.
The Management of Nilgiris District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Versus
The Appellate Authority & Others
W.P. Nos. 39418 to 39420 of 2006 & M.P. Nos. 2+2 of 2006
Decided on : 18-06-2014
For the Petitioner:D. Rajendran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R.M. Muthukumar, R3, R. Sivakumar for M/s. Sivakumar & Suresh, Advocates.
The main legal point established is that the calculation of gratuity should be based on 30 days salary per month as wages, as affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. Additionally, the existing settlement allowed for payment without a ceiling, and the petitioner was bound by earlier orders and dis-entitled to relief.
Headnote:
Gratuity Calculation - Division Bench Judgment - The court held that the gratuity shall be determined by calculating 30 days salary per month as wages, not 26 days, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. The existing settlement allowed for payment without a ceiling, and the management cannot challenge it. The petitioner is bound by earlier orders and is dis-entitled to relief.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether gratuity should be determined by calculating 26 days or 30 days salary per month as wages. The petitioner, bound by earlier orders, sought relief through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gratuity should be determined by calculating 30 days salary per month as wages, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. The existing settlement allowed for payment without a ceiling, and the management cannot challenge it. The petitioner is bound by earlier orders and is dis-entitled to relief.
Issues: The issue was whether the gratuity should be determined by calculating 26 days or 30 days salary per month as wages, and whether the petitioner, bound by earlier orders, was entitled to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Division Bench judgment, affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that gratuity should be determined by calculating 30 days salary per month as wages. The existing settlement allowed for payment without a ceiling, and the management cannot challenge it. The petitioner is bound by earlier orders and is dis-entitled to relief.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The petitioner was dis-entitled to relief, and no costs were awarded.
1. The short point that arises for consideration is as to whether the gratuity shall be determined by calculating 26 days salary per month as wages or 30 days salary per month as wages.
2. This issue involved herein was already considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Jeevanlal (1929) Limited, and others Vs. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and others reported in 1982 (1) LLJ 86 wherein the Division Bench held that “20 months does not mean 20 x 26 days, but it means the dictionary meaning of a month, by which a month will comprise 30 days. Therefore, the maximum gratuity available to a workmen will be 600 days by multiplying 20 x 30. The Division Bench Judgment as referred to above was, on appeal confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The observation of the Division Bench as affirmed by the Supreme Court is referred to by the learned brother Judge of this Court, K. Chandru. J, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.24065 to 24068/2005, 23560 and 23561 of 2005. (The Management of Nilgiris District, Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Udhagamandalam, Vs. The Appellate Authority, Under the Payment of Gratuity Act/Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore and others). The brother Judge, while dealing with similar issue referred to the Division Bench order and held in para-7 as follows :
“Even otherwise, under the existing terms of the settlement, workers are entitled to get payment without ceiling. The Bank having agreed to make such payment in terms of the settlement cannot assail of such settlement. Under Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, wherein, nonworkers are only affected in lesser terms, but does not prevent the parties in agreeing to pay higher rates of gratuity. Since admittedly, the contesting respondents are employees within the meaning of the Act, the orders passed by the authorities below which are impugned in the writ petition does not call for any interference”.
and accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the management.
3. It is note worthy to mention at this juncture that the petitioner in this writ petition was the petitioner in the batch of writ petitions, dealt with by the learned brother Judge, as such, the petitioner is bound by the earlier orders passed by this court, and they cannot be now permitted to re-open and re-agitate the same issue and the petitioner is hence, dis-entitled to get any relief in this writ petition.
4. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
