IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
S. Mohana - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Kanyakumari & Others - Respondent
W.P(MD)No. 2961 of 2021
Decided On : 03-08-2022
Mandamus - Payment of Gratuity - The court directed the fourth respondent to pay the gratuity amount with interest in three equal monthly installments to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant in the office of the fourth respondent, filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to issue a certificate under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and to initiate recovery proceedings against the fourth respondent for non-payment of gratuity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.46,240/- as gratuity with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the due date till the date of payment. The court directed the fourth respondent to pay the amount in three equal monthly installments.
Issues: Non-payment of gratuity to the petitioner by the fourth respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no justification for withholding the payment and directed the fourth respondent to pay the gratuity amount with interest in three equal monthly installments.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the court directed the fourth respondent to pay the gratuity amount with interest in three equal monthly installments to the petitioner. There was no order as to costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to issue a certificate under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, after quantifying the arrears due to the petitioner so as to direct the second respondent to initiate recovery proceedings against the fourth respondent, thereby implementing the orders of the third respondent dated 11.02.2019 made in P.G.No.47 of 2016 and direct to pay the same to the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to issue a certificate under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, after quantifying the arrears due to the petitioner so as to direct the second respondent to initiate recovery proceedings against the fourth respondent, thereby implementing the orders of the third respondent dated 11.02.2019 made in P.G.No.47 of 2016 and direct to pay the same to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner worked as an Assistant in the office of the fourth respondent and due to alleged irregularities, she was placed under suspension on 20.12.2003 and later she was dismissed from service. She was not paid any subsistence allowance and therefore she filed applications in P.S.A.Nos.1 of 2006 and 6 of 2007 for the period from 20.12.2003 to 16.12.2005 and from 17.12.2005 till the payment of subsistence allowance respectively. The fourth respondent filed applications to reject the petitioner's claim and those applications were dismissed by the third respondent. Against the said order, the fourth respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.8090 of 2010 and that was also dismissed on 19.11.2010. Subsequently, the applications in P.S.A.Nos.1 of 2006 and 6 of 2007 were renumbered as P.S.A.Nos.20 and 21 of 2012. Since the fourth respondent dismissed the petitioner from service, she raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act in I.D.No.91 of 2006 before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli and that was allowed on 01.06.2012 directing the fourth respondent to reinstate the petitioner without backwages. This Court in W.P(MD)No.13608 of 2014, by an order dated 19.03.2018, confirmed the order of reinstatement passed in I.D.No.91 of 2006.
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 29.11.2007 and therefore she was entitled for gratuity. Hence, the petitioner filed P.G.No.47 of 2016 before the third respondent claiming gratuity on the basis of monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-. The third respondent quantified the petitioner's monthly salary at Rs.3,206/- and calculated the gratuity to be paid to the petitioner as Rs.46,240/- with subsequent interest at 10% per annum from 30.11.2009. The fourth respondent did not pay the amount and therefore the third respondent by proceedings in AA2/3164/2019, dated 09.03.2020 issued a certificate under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and forwarded it to the first respondent for recovering under the Revenue Recovery Act. Even thereafter, the amount was not paid. Therefore this Writ Petition is filed for implementing the orders passed by the third respondent in P.G.No.47 of 2016, dated 11.02.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent Sangam has become defunct and is not in a position to pay the amount. The fourth respondent will pay the amount in installments.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent fixed the gratuity amount at Rs.46,240/- with interest at 10% per annum from the date of gratuity amount till the date of payment.
6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
7. In the enquiry in P.G.No.47 of 2016, five witnesses have been examined and two documents were marked, it was found that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.46,240/- as gratuity with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the due date till the date of payment. Though
The court has the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel the performance of a public legal duty, such as the payment of gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The central legal principle established is that gratuity, as a retirement benefit, must be determined and paid to eligible employees in a timely manner as mandated by The Payment of Gratuity Act, 197....
The court may issue a writ of mandamus to direct a public authority to consider and dispose of a pending representation regarding service benefits in accordance with the law within a stipulated time ....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of timely application for gratuity and considered the employee's conduct in determining the interest rate.
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.
The duty of the authorities to implement the Deputy Labour Commissioner's order for recovery of remaining gratuity amount with interest, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory entitlement of an employee to interest on delayed payment of gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be paid in a lump sum within 30 days and cannot be paid in installments, regardless of the employer's financial situation.
The court mandated the implementation of a Recovery Certificate under the Payment of Gratuity Act within a specified timeframe.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.