Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.VENUGOPAL, P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department Fort St. George, Chennai and Others – Respondents
Vs.
Tamil Nadu Temple's Retired Employees Welfare Association – Respondent
W.A.No.326 of 2015
Decided On : 12-10-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. M. Maharaja, Special Govt. Pleader (H.R.&C.E.)
For the Respondent: Dr. R. Gouri
Headnote:
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Central Act - Contributory Provident Fund Scheme - Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Association submits that the retired temple employees have filed W.P. praying for passing of an order by directing the Appellants to disburse the gratuity amount to the temple employees who are entitled to receive the same - Held, It is added by way of clarification that in cases where the religious Institutions in which ten or more persons had never been employed at any time, if any of its retired employee make any claim before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, such claim could be defended by the concerned Religious Institution with supporting evidence that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, do not apply to that Religious Institution - Since it is only the persons employed in a religious institution, in which ten or more persons are employed would be eligible to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, this Court is of the considered view that the directions issued by the learned Judge in the Writ Petition in the impugned order, permitting the Respondent/Association to make a representation enclosing the list of names and details regarding service particulars of its members would not be necessary and hence that part of the direction issued is hereby set aside - Appeal disposed of.
M.VENUGOPAL, J.
The Appellants have focussed the instant Writ Appeal before this Court praying for passing of a Judgment by this Court to set aside the order dated 07.04.2014 in W.P.No.33936 of 2013 passed by the Learned Single Judge.
2. According to the Respondent/Association, it is a Society Registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act (vide Registration 169/2010). The Respondent's society comprises of members, who had served in various posts in the temples of Tamil Nadu and attained superannuation.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Association submits that the retired temple employees have filed W.P.No.33936 of 2013 praying for passing of an order by directing the Appellants to disburse the gratuity amount to the temple employees (members of the Respondent's Association) who are entitled to receive the same under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
4. Advancing her arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent by placing reliance on the Full Bench Decision of this Court reported in 2013 (3) CTC 689 (between E.Gopal V. Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani and two others), at special page 691 and 692, whereby and whereunder, it is observed as follows:
“The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a self-contained and complete code by itself and its provisions impliedly exclude recourse to any other statute. Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has overriding effect over the provisions of any other enactment. It is not in dispute that the Central Act is more advantageous than that of the State Rules. In other words, the benefit availed by the employees of the Devasthanam under the State Rules is meager compared to the Gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Section 4(5) of the Act protects the right of the employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement contract with the employer. The proviso to Rule 26 of the Rules provides that said Rule will not apply to any institution where the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme is in force. By imposing a restriction, the Rules prohibit the employees enjoy the fruits of the beneficial Central Act and to that extent the Rules inconsistent with the Central Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding the Rules are repugnant to the Central Act to the extent indicated above.”
5. Expatiating her submission, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that as against the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.3825 of 2003 etc., batch, the Devasthanam preferred an Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order dated 03.05.2013, in SLP in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)...CC.Nos.6008-6009/2013 had directed the tagging of the Civil Appeal No.897/2002 and other connected matters.
6. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent brings it to the notice of this Court that in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal CC.Nos.6008-6009 of 2013 [between Arulmighu Sankaranarayaswamy Devasthanam v. S.Srinivasan & others etc.] with S.L.P.(C)... CC No.8448-8449 of 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed to the effect that 'both the counsels for the appellants made a statement that in the meanwhile, the appellants will continue to make payments to the employees as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The appellants will make payments to the employee as and when they retire and will not drive them to go to the Payment of Gratuity Authority'.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent proceeds to point out that in W.P.(MD).Nos.927 to 932 of 2010, the Learned Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of this Court on 01.08.2013 relying on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.05.2013 in S.L.P.Nos.6008-6009 of 2013 had proceeded to observe that there was no stay of the order of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2013(3) CTC 689 (supra) and the decisions squarely applies to the Writ Petitioners therein and ultimately dismissed the Writ Petiti
