The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which governs the entitlement to gratuity for employees.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent / Tahsildar to implement the order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.2021/2020/F dated 23.07.2020, 29.08.2020 and to recover the amount as per the certificate issued on 30.01.2020 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dharmapuri, as on date and to remit the same as per the certificate apart from any other damages for the sufferings caused to me by negligent act of the 3rd respondent.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the second respondent/Tahsildar to implement the order of the first respondent vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.2021/2020/F dated 23.07.2020, 29.08.2020 and to recover the amount as per the certificate issued on 30.01.2020 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dharmapuri, as on date and to remit the same as per the certificate apart from any other damages for the sufferings caused to the petitioner by negligent act of the third respondent.

2. The petitioner was serving as an employee at the third respondent Transport Corporation and lastly he was serving as Senior Tradesman and on superannuation, he retired from service on 30.06.2014. The petitioner has rendered unblemished service for 32 years to the said Transport Corporation and therefore, he is entitled to get the gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, within 30 days from the retirement, which was not paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed P.G.Case No.113 of 2018 before the Controlling Authority and on 13.03.2019, a direction was given to the third respondent to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.6,32,838/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. However, in the interregnum, out of the said amount, only a sum of Rs.5,81,289/- along with interest amount to a tune of Rs.84,270/- was paid to the petitioner on 23.05.2017.

3. After making the above payment, still there is a due to the extent of Rs.51,669/- by calculating the remaining due payable by the third respondent to the petitioner as gratuity with interest of 10% per annum, as allowed by the Gratuity Authority and in order to recover the said amount, the petitioner had approached the Labour Commissioner concerned. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Salem, on considering the request of the petitioner, has passed an order dated 30.01.2020 in Na.Ka.No.B4/5323/2019 addressed to the first respondent District Collector to invoke the provision under Revenue Recovery Act, for recovery of the said sum of Rs.51,669/- from the third respondent with interest at the rate of 10%. Since the said request made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to the first respondent District Collector has not been considered and no action has been taken by the District Collector, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

4. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the order dated 30.01.2020 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, it is a duty on the part of the first respondent to initiate the revenue recovery proceedings.

6. On the other hand, Mr.B.Anand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 on instruction would submit that the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in Na.Ka.No.B4/5323/2019 would certainly be considered by the first respondent and in this regard, necessary direction would be given to the second respondent to recover the said amount of gratuity payable by the third respondent to the petitioner and the same may be deposited in the said account of the Deputy Labour Commissioner.

7. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

8. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the