Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Kaleeswarar Mills 'A' Unit, Rep by General Manager, Coimbatore – Appellant
Versus
The Appellate Authority, Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 22727 of 2005 & W.M.P. No. 24758 of 2005
Decided on : 13-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Parthiban, Advocate.
Quit receipts cannot waive the right to receive full gratuity, and the management's refusal to pay entire gratuity based on recoverable advance is not supported by law.
Headnote:
Gratuity - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 13, Section 14
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a unit of a Public Sector Undertaking, challenged the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority directing payment of gratuity to a workman. The petitioner contended that the workmen had given up their right to receive full gratuity through quit receipts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the quit receipts did not make reference to gratuity and that the workmen could not have understood that gratuity was covered in the receipts. The court held that the management's refusal to pay the entire gratuity based on the recoverable advance was not supported by law.
Issues: Interpretation of quit receipts, validity of the management's refusal to pay entire gratuity, applicability of Section 13 and Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the quit receipts did not waive the workmen's right to receive full gratuity and that the management's refusal to pay the entire gratuity was not supported by law, citing Section 13 and Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the contesting respondents were entitled to withdraw the amount lying in deposit with the 2nd respondent.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue the Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in Gratuity Appeal No.431 of 2003 dated 11.03.2005, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in Gratuity Application No.64 of 2001 dated 20.03.2003 and quash the same.)
1. The order dated 11.03.2005 passed by the first respondent in Gratuity Appeal No.431 of 2003 confirming the order of the second respondent in Gratuity Application No.64 of 2001 dated 20.03.2003 are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner – Kaleeswarar Mills 'A' Unit is one of the Unit Mills of National Textile Corporation Limited, which is a Public Sector Undertaking functioning under the control of Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. The third respondent/workman approached the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for settlement of gratuity amount. The Controlling Authority passed an order on 20.03.2003 directing the writ petitioner/Management to pay a sum of Rs.10,652.73/- as gratuity to the applicant within a period of 30 days along with an interest rate of 10% from the date it is payable till the date of payment. Challenging the said order of the Original Authority, the writ petitioner preferred a Gratuity Appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority also passed an order on 11.03.2005, dismissing the appeal and the writ petitioner was further directed to pay the balance gratuity claimed by the workman and as per the direction of the Controlling Authority along with interest as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. Challenging these two orders, the writ petition is filed.
3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the very same issue, raised by the writ petitioner, has been decided by this Court in WP.No.20776 of 2005 dated 20.03.2019.
4. The above order was passed, based on the circumstances in an identical case where the Court has rejected the claim of the Management in order dated 10.02.2011 in WP.No.32319 of 2004. The observations by this Court in the said order is extracted hereunder :-
"3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the stand of the management that in view of the receipts given by the workmen dated 11.7.2000 undertaking that they will not claim any more amounts either in law or in equity from the mill, the amounts received were vouchsafed as the full discharge of the liability of the management. According to the petitioner management, the management faced a severe loss from the accounting year 1991-1992. In view of the pecuniary limit under the Payment of Bonus Act, majority of the workmen have gone out of the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act. However, the workmen were insisting for payment during the Deepavali period.
4. Therefore, for the accounting year 1996-1997, on 23.10.1997, a settlement was reached under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act with the recognised unions, by which in respect the workmen, whose wages exceeding Rs.3,500/- per month, were to be paid an advance, which will be equivalent to bonus and exgratia payable. The mode of adjustment of the advance was to be subsequently discussed with the Trade Unions and decided. For the year 1997-1998, the management also put up a notice on 5.11.1999 stating that those workmen who are not covered by the Payment of Bonus Act will be given an advance on condition that the management will seek the Central Government's sanction funs towards the repayment of the advance. If the Central Government agreed for the waiver, the amounts will not be recoverable. But, however, in case of refusal by the Central Government, the issue will be sorted out between the authorities.
5. On 26.7.1999, the Central Government rejected the waiver of repayment of advance amount. The workmen did not repay the amounts even on monthly instalments. Therefore, the management at the time of their resignation or retiremen
